Jurisdiction Commons^™

The Antiregulatory Arsenal, Antidemocratic Can(N)Ons, And The Waters Wars, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Clean Water Act (CWA) has become a centerpiece in an enduring multifront battle against both environmental regulation and federal regulatory power in all of its settings. This article focuses on the emergence, elements, and linked uses of an antiregulatory arsenal now central to battles over what are federally protected “waters of the United States.” This is the key jurisdictional hook for CWA jurisdiction, and hence, logically, has become the heart of CWA contestation. The multi-decade battle over Waters protections has both drawn on emergent antiregulatory moves and generated new weapons in this increasingly prevalent and powerful antiregulatory arsenal. This …

Boeing, Boeing, Gone: General Jurisdiction Over Corporations, Principal Place Of Business, And A Second Look At The Total Activities Test, Robert Ellis Stengel

Brooklyn Law Review

In 2011’s Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court redefined the contours of corporate personal jurisdiction, radically curtailing the “doing business” jurisdiction that previously predominated. Since then, corporations are only subject to general jurisdiction where they are “fairly regarded as at home,” a domicile test effectively limited to two locations: (1) the state in which the corporation is incorporated and (2) the state in which the corporation has its “principal place of business.” However, the Supreme Court has never explicitly defined the term “principal place of business” for personal jurisdiction purposes. The Court has addressed …

Subsidiarity & Vulnerability Theory: A Case Study For Deepening The Relationship Between Catholic Social Teaching And The Responsive State, Nathaniel Romano

Catholic University Law Review

Religion and religious voices have long had a role to play in shaping community norms and values and public policy; this role continues in contemporary America. Yet, legitimate questions arise about the extent of this role and its place in a pluralist and democratic state. These questions are particularly pronounced when religion is perceived as partisan, a situation that seems apparent in contemporary America. Hoping to combat this perception, this paper explores the relationship between Catholic Social Teaching and Vulnerability Theory, aiming to show how religious values can inform legal theory across the political spectrum. This paper surveys both Catholic …

A Jurisprudential Quilt Of Tribal Civil Jurisdiction: An Analysis Of Tribal Court Approaches To Determining Civil Adjudicatory Jurisdiction, Jacob Maiman-Stadtmauer

American Indian Law Journal

In 1998, Tammy Lang embezzled approximately $8,000 from the Ho-Chunk Nation’s child daycare. Lang was a non-Indianemployed by the tribe as the Director for the Ho-Chunk Nation’s Head Start program. However, instead of supporting the children of the tribe, she abused her position to steal the tribe’s money to start her own business. The FBI declined to prosecute Lang, and the Ho-Chunk Nation could not prosecute Lang. As a result, the Ho-Chunk Nation was left with few choices: it could let this injustice stand; it could attempt recovery in state or federal court, subjecting itself to the laws of another …

Territoriality In American Criminal Law, Emma Kaufman

Michigan Law Review

It is a bedrock principle of American criminal law that the authority to try and punish someone for a crime arises from the crime’s connection to a particular place. Thus, we assume that a person who commits a crime in some location— say, Philadelphia—can be arrested by Philadelphia police for conduct deemed criminal by the Pennsylvania legislature, prosecuted in a Philadelphia court, and punished in a Pennsylvania prison. The idea that criminal law is tied to geography in this way is called the territoriality principle. This idea is so familiar that it usually goes unstated.

This Article foregrounds and questions …

Debs And The Federal Equity Jurisdiction, Aditya Bamzai, Samuel L. Bray

Notre Dame Law Review

The United States can sue for equitable relief without statutory authorization. The leading case on this question is In re Debs, and how to understand that case is of both historical and contemporary importance. Debs was a monumental opinion that prompted responses in the political platforms of major parties, presidential addresses, and enormous academic commentary. In the early twentieth century, Congress enacted several pieces of labor legislation that reduced Debs’s importance in the specific context of strikes. But in other contexts, the question whether the United States can bring suit in equity remains disputed to this day. The …

The Role Of The Will In Determining International Jurisdiction Of Bahraini Courts: A Comparative Analytical Study, Mohammed Walied El-Masry

مجلة جامعة الإمارات للبحوث القانونية UAEU LAW JOURNAL

Individuals in internal relations can choose the territorially competent court to consider their dispute, so they choose the court of the plaintiff’s domicile, for example, instead of the court of the defendant’s domicile, or the court of the place of execution of the contract instead of the court of the place where it was concluded, and this is a logical consequence of not considering the rules of local jurisdiction from the public order. Can individuals also exercise this option in international private relations, and grant jurisdiction to the courts of a specific country, knowing that their agreement here will have …

Catch And Kill Jurisdiction, Zachary D. Clopton

Michigan Law Review

In catch and kill journalism, a tabloid buys a story that could be published elsewhere and then deliberately declines to publish it. In catch and kill jurisdiction, a federal court assumes jurisdiction over a case that could be litigated in state court and then declines to hear the merits through a nonmerits dismissal. Catch and kill journalism undermines the free flow of information. Catch and kill jurisdiction undermines the enforcement of substantive rights. And, importantly, because catch and kill jurisdiction relies on jurisdictional and procedural law, it is often able to achieve ends that would be politically unpalatable by other …

Disability Accessibility In Washington Courts, Luke Byram

Access*: Interdisciplinary Journal of Student Research and Scholarship

In this article, disability access is explored in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada, examining court systems and the rights of defendants in a literature review. Then, disability accessibility and diversity are explored within the Washington court system utilizing semi-structured interviews with 17 practicing Washington State attorneys from diverse backgrounds and legal experiences who primarily practice criminal law in the courts. The article describes the current state of sign language interpretation and communication barriers within the courts for those who are disabled and the current accommodation standard and various communication and physical barriers for those with disabilities in the court …

Wake Up And Smell The Smog: The Third Circuit Provides Clarity On Cercla's Federally Permitted Release Reporting Exemption In Clean Air Council V. United States Steel Corp., Zachary Lawlor

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Wishing To Be Part Of That Court: How The Supreme Court's Decision In Bp P.L.C. V. Mayor Of Baltimore Lets Energy Companies Wander Free And Drown The Shore Up Above, Natalie Poirier

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ford V. Where Are We?: The Revival Of The Sliding Scale To Govern The Supreme Court's New "Relating To" Personal Jurisdiction, Zois Manaris

William & Mary Law Review

This Note proposes a test to govern “relating to” specific jurisdiction, a variation on a theme to those familiar with the doctrine: a “sliding scale” approach to contacts and relatedness, accompanied by a separate assessment of reasonableness factors the Supreme Court has outlined in previous cases to serve as a check on the sliding scale. Part I of this Note explains the “sliding scale” approach, its unpleasant first interaction with the Court, and its revival by the Ford majority. Part II defines this Note’s proposed test and demonstrates its consistency with Supreme Court precedent. Finally, Part III applies this Note’s …

Chisholm V. Georgia (1793): Laying The Foundation For Supreme Court Precedent, Abigail Stanger

The Cardinal Edge

No abstract provided.

Public Access To Online Hearings, Jérémy Boulanger-Bonnelly

Dalhousie Law Journal

The open court principle faced a significant challenge when courthouses closed their doors to limit the spread of COVID-19. The shift to online hearings in many jurisdictions generated new avenues for public access but also raised concerns for the privacy and security of individuals, and for the administration of justice. Building on existing principles and a review of the measures adopted by courts in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia during the pandemic, this paper seeks to identify best practices to preserve an appropriate balance between openness and competing interests in the online environment. It concludes that …

An Analytical Study On Legal Validity Of Online Dispute Resolution (Odr) System In India And Indonesia, Dr Rahul Nikam, Bangkim Singh Nongthombam

Indonesia Law Review

Advancement in technology brought many inevitable changes with more efficiency, making human life easier. Benefit of technology shall be incorporated for effective and efficient justice delivery in dispute resolution mechanism. New development in this area is online arbitration dispute resolutions (ODR) which have been without doubt adopted and practices by justice delivery system across the globe. But the question remains the same as whether justice delivery system is equipped to cope up in the same pace with the changes taking place in the society and technology. Are the existing laws being enough to conduct online system as an effective mechanism …

A Hague Parallel Proceedings Convention: Architecture And Features, Paul Herrup, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

In Paul Herrup and Ronald A. Brand, A Hague Convention on Parallel Proceedings, 63 Harvard International Law Journal Online 1(2022), available at https://harvardilj.org/2022/02/a-hague-convention-on-parallel-proceedings/ and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3894502, we argued that the Hague Conference on Private International Law should not undertake a project to require or prohibit exercise of original jurisdiction in national courts. Rather, the goal of current efforts should be to improve the concentration of parallel litigation in a “better forum,” in order to achieve efficient and complete resolution of disputes in transnational litigation. The Hague Conference is now taking this path. As the Experts Group and Working Group …

Case Law On American Indians, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

What It Takes: A Statistical Analysis Of Arkansas Supreme Court’S Petition For Review Process, Justice Rhonda Wood, Jessica Finan Patterson, Brian W. Johnson

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Motion Denied: Procedural Pitfalls Prevail In Motions To Remand, Blair Rotert

Boston College Law Review

On May 6, 2021, in Shipley v. Helping Hands Therapy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that non-jurisdictional remands must be based on timely motions to remand that assert procedural defects. This holding revisited a split between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Fifth Circuits regarding the proper interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)’s non-jurisdictional remand provision. The Ninth Circuit—much like the Eleventh Circuit but with different reasoning—found that both the raising of the procedural defect and the motion to remand must be timely, whereas the Fifth Circuit held that only the …

Mubita Mwananuka V Armaguard Security Caz Appeal No. 201/2021, O'Brien Kaaba

SAIPAR Case Review

The Court of Appeal of Zambia, in the case of Mubita Mwananuka v Armaguard Security CAZ Appeal No. 201/2021, delivered a Ruling on 3rd August 2022 to divest the High Court General List of jurisdiction over employment matters. I argue that this decision is in clear violation of the Constitution and demonstrates bewildering disregard of precedents by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, which bind the Court of Appeal.