Litigation Commons^™

Jurisdictional Gerrymandering - Responding To Holmes Group V. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, 36 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2002), Molly Mosley-Goren

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In The United States: The Need For Federal Legislation, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 229 (2003), Violeta I. Balan

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro: The Stream-Of-Commerce Theory Of Personal Jurisdiction In A Globalized Economy, Elisabeth A. Beal

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall In Spencer Roane's Virginia: The Southern Constitutional Opposition To The Marshall Court, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1131 (2000), F. Thornton Miller

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comments On Rooker-Feldman Or Let State Law Be Our Guide, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

I feel privileged to have been asked to be a commentator on the three principal papers in this symposium. These are three excellent papers, and although there has been some valuable commentary on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, there will be no need to go beyond these papers to gain a full appreciation of the doctrine, its applications, and its problems, which run as deep as the problems of any doctrine.

Stop The Madness! Procedural And Practical Defenses To Avoid Inconsistent Cross-Border Judgments Between Texas And Mexico, Lauretta Drake

Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Federal Circuit's Forgotten Lessons: Annealing New Forms Of Intellectual Property Through Consolidated Appellate Jurisdiction, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 581 (1999), Chris J. Katopis

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Spending Clause? - (Or The President's Paramour): An Examination Of The Views Of Hamilton, Madison, And Story On Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 Of The United States Constitution, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 81 (1999), Jeffrey T. Renz

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Immunity Waivers For Suits By The United States, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

The Supreme Court closed this millennium with a virtual celebration of state sovereignty, protecting state authority from the reach of congressional power in several significant ways. In a pair of cases, Seminole Tribe v. Florida1 and Alden v. Maine,2 the Court held that states enjoy a constitutional immunity from being sued without their consent. In Seminole Tribe, the Court opined that "the background principle of state sovereign immunity embodied in the Eleventh Amendment"3 protects states from unconsented suits in federal court. In Alden, the Court held that this principle is not merely embodied in the Eleventh Amendment but rather is …

Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything About The Legal System? Win Rates And Removal Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

General Observations on Interpreting Win-Rate Data Properly. Many empirical legal studies use data on plaintiffs' rate of success, because of those data's ready availability and apparent import. Yet these "win rates" are probably the slipperiest of all judicial data. Win rates are inherently ambiguous because of the case-selection effect. The litigants' selection of the cases brought produces a biased sample from the mass of underlying disputes. The settlement process, usually conducted by rational and knowledgeable persons who take into account and thereby neutralize the very factor that one would like to study, produces a residue of litigated cases for which …

Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Howard M. Erichson

Michigan Law Review

Res judicata is hard enough already. Consider it at the interjurisdictional level, and we are asking for headaches. But consider it at that level we must, because litigation trends make interjurisdictional preclusion more important than ever. Lawyers, judges, litigants, and other litigation participants increasingly must contemplate the possibility that a lawsuit will have claim-preclusive or issue-preclusive effect in a subsequent suit in another jurisdiction. With great frequency, multiple lawsuits arise out of single or related transactions or events. Mass tort litigation and complex commercial litigation provide the most emphatic examples, but the phenomenon of multiple related lawsuits extends to every …

The Scientological Defenestration Of Choice-Of-Law Doctrines For Publication Torts On The Internet, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 361 (1997), Christopher P. Beall

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

Two major doctrines exist for choosing which state's law applies to an interstate tort: the "lex loci deliciti" (the law of the place of the wrong) approach and the "most significant relationship" approach. In the context of the Internet, the "lex loci deliciti" approach has been criticized for its harshness. For example, it is possible for an e-mail posting to be non-actionable where written, but actionable where read. Likewise, the "most significant relationship" approach has been criticized for its indeterminacy and lack of predictability because the outcome as to the extent of liability for a publication tort on the Internet …

Simplifying The Choice Of Forum: A Reply, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

We have three things to think about here, as the real estate agents say—“location, location, location.” Accordingly, the two of us have engaged for several years in empirical studies aimed at gauging the effect of forum on case outcome. The results to date strongly suggest that forum really matters. An early piece of the puzzle fell into place in our study of venue. In that article, we examined the benefits and costs of the federal courts scheme of transfer of civil venue “in the interest of justice.” Ours was a pretty straightforward and simple cost-benefit analysis, but we supported it …

Class Actions And Supplemental Jurisdiction: Will Zahn V. International Paper Co. Remain Viable?, Christopher P. Simkins

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Xenophilia In American Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Foreigner! The word says it all. Verging on the politically incorrect, the expression is full of connotation and implication. A foreigner will face bias. By such a thought process, many people believe that litigants have much to fear in courts foreign to them. In particular, non-Americans fare badly in American courts. Foreigners believe this. Even Americans believe this.

Such views about American courts are understandable. After all, the grant of alienage jurisdiction to the federal courts, both original and removal, constitutes an official assumption that xenophobic bias is present in state courts. As James Madison said of state courts: “We …

What's Wrong With This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, The Anti-Injunction Act, In Personam Jurisdiction, And M.C. Escher, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The effectiveness of interpleader depends upon the availability of injunctions against other proceedings. There is no congressional authorization of such injunctions for rule interpleader cases. If interpleader were an in rem action, one of the other exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act might save the day, but the Supreme Court has apparently foreclosed that option. This article examines that three-sided conflict. Part II discusses the problem in greater depth, focusing first on how interpleader functions and why it depends on being “the only game in town.” Part II next addresses the background and interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act, exploring particularly the …

Extra-Statutory Discovery Requirements: Violating The Twin Purposes Of 28 U.S.C. Section 1782, Christopher W. Sanzone

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Note analyzes Section 1782 of United States Code Chapter 28 and its role in the realm of international judicial assistance. The twin aims of Section 1782 are: (1) to provide efficient means of assistance to participants in foreign litigation, and (2) to encourage foreign countries by example to provide similar assistance to U.S. litigants in court. This Note posits that these goals are violated when a district court, considering a request for documents, imposes a threshold, extra-statutory requirement that the material requested be discoverable in the foreign jurisdiction where the litigation is pending.

After analyzing the legislative history of …

The Ali's Complex Litigation Project And Federal-To-State Consolidation: A Due Process Analysis Of Granting To State Courts Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, Deborah Dunn

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most of the business of litigation comprises pretrial disputes. A common and important dispute is over where adjudication should take place. Civil litigators deal with nearly as many change-of-venue motions as trials. The battle over venue often constitutes the critical issue in a case.

The American way is to provide plaintiffs with a wide choice of venues for suit. But the American way has its drawbacks. To counter these drawbacks, an integral part of our court systems, and in particular the federal court system, is the scheme of transfer of venue "in the interest of justice." However, the leading evaluative …

The Ali, Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Federal Constitutional Case, C. Douglas Floyd

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Removing Intrastate Lawsuits: The Affecting-Commerce Argument After United States V. Lopez, Kelly G. Black

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transfer And Choice Of Federal Law: The Appellate Model, Robert A. Ragazzo

Michigan Law Review

In light of recent developments, a reexamination of the position that transferee federal law applies regardless of the context is in order. This article argues that the consensus that existed prior to the Marcus article and the Korean Air Lines case, although not based upon the most thorough analysis, comprises the better view: transferee federal law should apply after permanent but not MDL transfers.

Democratic Responses To International Terrorism, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

This volume provides a multidisciplinary study of terrorism. The editor notes at the outset the difficulty of definition: "Terrorism is not a one-dimensional problem; it transcends many frontiers: political, jurisdictional, institutional, disciplinary and methodological. So approaching the problem from only one perspective may lead to only partial understanding and an incomplete strategy for developing constructive responses” (p. 3). Note the tendency of even this careful statement to assume that terrorism is always committed by others, Also, although legal definition and consideration may be implied by the terms polical, jurisdictional, institutional and disciplinary, which are indicated as various dimensions of …

Litigation And Inequality: Federal Diversity Jurisdiction In Industrial America, David A. Luigs

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Litigation and Inequality: Federal Diversity Jurisdiction in Industrial America by Edward A. Purcell, Jr.

Proposal To Change The Patent Reexamination Statute To Eliminate Unnecessary Litigation, 27 J. Marshall L. Rev. 887 (1994), Marvin Motsenbocker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Removal And The Eleventh Amendment: The Case For District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid A Bifurcated Suit, Mitchell N. Berman

Michigan Law Review

This Note concludes that the Sixth Circuit was half right: when a civil action names both state and private defendants - what this Note terms a "mixed case" - and when the claims against private defendants arise under federal law, the district court must grant removal of the case8 and must remand the claims against the state defendant. However, this Note also observes that the Fifth Circuit probably achieved the better result. After defendants have removed a mixed case to federal court and the district court has remanded the barred claims, the dual court systems and the parties will usually …

Section 1983 Litigation, Martin A. Schwartz, Honorable Leon D. Lazer, Honorable George C. Pratt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Aliens In Patent Infringement Actions: A Uniform Approach Toward The Situs Of The Tort, David Wille

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines current approaches to the question of personal jurisdiction over alien patent infringers. Part I describes personal jurisdiction requirements in the context of patent infringement suits against aliens. The leading case addressing these requirements has been interpreted differently by several courts, thus resulting in conflicting outcomes. Part II explains the current controversy over the locus of the tort of patent infringement. The three different modes of reasoning currently used by courts to determine the locus of the tort would allow immunity from suit for the alien in at least two hypothetical cases. This Part concludes that in order …

The Use Of Anti-Suit Injunctions In International Litigation, George A. Bermann

Faculty Scholarship

Of the various forms of provisional relief in the context of inter-national litigation, none has sparked as much interest and controversy as the international anti-suit injunction. In many ways the international anti-suit injunction, an instrument by which a court of one jurisdiction seeks to restrain the conduct of litigation in another jurisdiction, resembles more conventional forms of international provisional relief such as the foreign attachment or preliminary injunction. Like them, the anti-suit injunction affords courts an important opportunity to affect the course and significance of litigation abroad. However, such intervention strongly implies – and often actually creates – jurisdictional conflict …

"You Can Lead A Horse To Water . . .": The Supreme Court's Refusal To Allow The Exercise Of Original Jurisdiction Conferred By Congress, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article will address primarily the lack of textual and historical support for the Court's narrow construction of jurisdictional provisions that cause it to deny the existence of jurisdiction. In addition, the Article will briefly describe the lack of historical support for the Court's independent development of the abstention doctrines and their consequent illegitimacy. Both areas share democratic theory and institutional legitimacy concerns that Professor Redish will address, but let me respectfully suggest that these issues are best understood in light of the congressional thought underlying the Title 28 authorizations.