University of New Hampshire
Florida A&M University College of Law
George Washington University Law School
Komisi Pemilihan Umum Republik Indonesia
South Texas College of Law
Cornell Law School
Lillard Wise Szygenda pllc
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Secret Et Procédure,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Secret Et Procédure, Pierre Raynaud
Proche-Orient, Études juridiques
No abstract provided.
Le Secret En Procédure Civile Et Pénale Libanaise,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Le Secret En Procédure Civile Et Pénale Libanaise, Sélim Jahel
Proche-Orient, Études juridiques
No abstract provided.
الموضع والمستحدث في المحاكمات المدنية,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
الموضع والمستحدث في المحاكمات المدنية, يوسف جبران
Proche-Orient, Études juridiques
No abstract provided.
Joinder’S Diversity Asymmetry,
2026
Pepperdine Caruso Law
Joinder’S Diversity Asymmetry, Jason J. Jarvis
Fordham Law Review
In federal diversity cases, plaintiffs are barred from joining nondiverse supplemental parties or claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). Defendants, however, can expand the case without the same restriction. Section 1367(b) codified the U.S. Supreme Court’s concern in Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger: Plaintiffs might so prefer federal court that they would “sneak” nondiverse parties in by hiding them until after diversity jurisdiction is established, only then springing them on unsuspecting courts and defendants. This Article challenges the justification for that asymmetry in three ways.
First, it explores the history of the asymmetry, starting with how joinder …
Royal Canin And The Jurisdiction It Left Behind: The Class Action Fairness Act,
2026
Fordham University School of Law
Royal Canin And The Jurisdiction It Left Behind: The Class Action Fairness Act, Nicole Brosnan
Fordham Law Review
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger created waves in the federal litigation world by setting forth a new rule, declaring that a plaintiff’s amendment of a complaint following removal is capable of destroying federal jurisdiction. Prior to this case, courts generally followed the “time-of-filing rule” by which federal jurisdiction attached at the time of removal. The U.S. Supreme Court was clear that this rule applies to federal claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the Court remained generally silent on its application to jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
This Note explores this lack of clarity and proposes …
Crossing The Toll Bridge: American Pipe And The Fate Of State Law Claims After Class Certification Denial In Federal Court,
2026
Fordham University School of Law
Crossing The Toll Bridge: American Pipe And The Fate Of State Law Claims After Class Certification Denial In Federal Court, Alexander Schnur
Fordham Law Review
Rule 23(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provides that, “At an early practicable time after a person sues . . . as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.” In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the interplay of this FRCP 23(c)(1)(A) class certification decision and statutes of limitations, holding that the commencement of a putative class action suspends the statute of limitations for putative class members while class certification is pending. Over the last fifty years, the American …
Incidental Jurisdiction,
2026
Texas A&M University School of Law
Incidental Jurisdiction, Mark Moller
Texas A&M Law Review
Federal courts have incidental, or implied, powers. On this, there is general agreement among originalist researchers. But there is also wide consensus that, whatever incidental powers Article III courts enjoy, these powers do not include incidental subject matter jurisdiction. Article III must confer federal subject matter jurisdiction expressly.
The conventional wisdom against incidental jurisdiction, though, is entirely unexamined. It is also wrong as an original matter. This Article presents new evidence that the express terms of Article III did not cash out the scope of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The outer boundaries of subject matter jurisdiction were defined, instead, by …
Cookies Crumble: Reimagining Internet Personal Jurisdiction Post Briskin V. Shopify,
2026
University of Cincinnati College of Law
Cookies Crumble: Reimagining Internet Personal Jurisdiction Post Briskin V. Shopify, Gabriel Wherley
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
الإجتهاد اللبناني,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
La Preuve Du Payement,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
La Preuve Du Payement, Hady Slim
Proche-Orient, Études juridiques
No abstract provided.
الإجتهاد اللبناني,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
الإجتهاد اللبناني,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Bibliographie,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
الإجتهاد اللبناني,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
الإجتهاد اللبناني,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Les Clauses Attributives De Compétence Et Les Clauses Compromissoires En Droit International Privé Libanais,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Les Clauses Attributives De Compétence Et Les Clauses Compromissoires En Droit International Privé Libanais, Nasri Antoine Diab
Proche-Orient, Études juridiques
No abstract provided.
الإجتهاد اللبناني,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Les Effets Du Jugement Étranger Invoqué Indépendamment De L'Exequatur,
2026
Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Les Effets Du Jugement Étranger Invoqué Indépendamment De L'Exequatur, Abdo Ghossoub
Proche-Orient, Études juridiques
No abstract provided.
On The Need To Recognize The Erga Omnes Effect In Fundamental Rights In Chilean Law,
2026
Florida International University College of Law
On The Need To Recognize The Erga Omnes Effect In Fundamental Rights In Chilean Law, José Luis Guerrero Becar
Latin American & Caribbean Law Review
This article refers to the Chilean legal tradition of the relative effect of judgments, that is, their effects apply only to the parties involved in the litigation. This principle has an express exception in the Consumer Rights Protection Act, which mentions the erga omnes effect. Since 2010, this principle has come under scrutiny due to constitutional injunctions in social security matters administered by private companies known as ISAPRES (National Health Insurance Companies). These companies have increased the prices of health plans, using tables that apply factors based on age and sex. This has led to the filing of thousands of …
Whose Burden Is It Anyway? A Historical Resolution To Burden Allocation Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(3),
2026
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Whose Burden Is It Anyway? A Historical Resolution To Burden Allocation Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(3), Curtis Valencia
Northwestern University Law Review
Today, venue is generally treated as secondary to jurisdiction: statutory, waivable, and concerned with where litigation should proceed, rather than whether it should proceed at all. Yet the courts of appeals remain split over a basic question of federal venue procedure: who bears the burden of proof when a defendant moves to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)? Though seemingly technical, in practice, burden allocation can determine whether a suit survives.
This Note offers the first historically grounded approach to resolving Rule 12(b)(3)’s burden allocation problem and argues that the circuit majority approach rests on …
