scholarly journals American Indian treaties and the lower federal courts: A guide to treaty citations from opinions of the lower United States federal court system

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 443-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles D. Bernholz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Indian ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Court System

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
James E. Pfander
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Court System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Article Iii Courts

This book’s introduction poses the problem of uncontested adjudication in the federal court system of the United States by focusing on the 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor. While in that case, the Supreme Court reached the merits despite the absence of a continuing dispute between the parties, Justice Antonin Scalia objected that doing so violated the adverse-party requirement, which he viewed as a constitutional requirement imposed by the case-or-controversy language of Article III. In arguing that federal courts may not entertain uncontested claims of right, Scalia’s dissent in Windsor nicely poses the question at the heart of this book. But the book reaches a different conclusion, based on the text and history of the Constitution, and the early practice of Article III courts. Having set the stage, the introduction offers an overview of the book’s argument. Part I describes the early practice of the antebellum federal courts, Part II the rise of the case-or-controversy rule in the early twentieth century, and Part III the continuing relevance of uncontested forms of adjudication. Synthesizing these strands, the book concludes that Article III courts can entertain proceedings to hear and determine uncontested applications to assert or register a claim of right under federal law.

scholarly journals The Current Status of the Preclusive Effects of Judgments in the Federal Court System of the United States of America

Lexonomica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-210
Author(s):  
Thomas Allan Heller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Court System ◽  
Res Judicata

Res judicata law in the United States of America has a long, extensive and complex history. The aim of this paper is to provide at least a working summary of some of the most important aspects of the current res judicata law in the federal court system of the United States. The flexible discovery, pleading and joinder rules have given rise to more expansive res judicata law. The paper will discuss what exactly constitutes a judgment; how the federal courts deal with the finality of judgments in multiple parties and multiple claim cases; the final judgment rule; the form of judgments; the methods to enter judgments and significance of entry of judgments; together with a detailed overview of the doctrine of res judicata itself, including the separate, but related twin doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.

scholarly journals The Forensic Engineer in State and Federal Court

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Ziernicki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court System ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
Forensic Engineering ◽  
And Function

This paper outlines the legal system in the United States, the different types of courts, the differences between criminal and civil law, and the role of forensic engineering experts involved in civil lawsuits. After providing a summary of relevant procedures employed by civil and criminal courts, the paper describes the basic principles and requirements for the selection and work of a forensic engineering expert in both the state and federal court system. This paper outlines the role and function of forensic experts (specifically forensic engineers), in the United States court system. It is not a treatise on the legal system but on the role of experts. The paper presents the requirements typically used in today’s legal system to qualify a forensic engineer as an expert witness and to accept his or her work and opinions. Furthermore, this paper discusses who can be an expert witness, the expert’s report, applicable standards, conducted research, engineering opinions, and final testimony in court — and how those elements fit into the legal system. Lastly, the paper describes the concept of spoliation of evidence.

scholarly journals Notes Procedural Fencing in Retiree Benefits Disputes: Applications of the First-Filed Rule in Federal Courts

2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Vanneman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
West Virginia ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
District Court ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Maximum Benefit

Basil Chapman retired from ACF Industries, a railroad-car maker, after thirty-eight years of service. In December 2003, he received an unexpected phone call at his West Virginia home from a union representative, who informed him that an ACF executive wanted to speak with him. When they spoke, the executive informed Mr. Chapman that ACF was planning on changing its retirees’ health coverage plan. The ACF plan would now have a lifetime maximum benefit cap on hospital and surgical expenses for each participant and would require retirees to make monthly contributions. According to court papers filed later, Mr. Chapman responded, “We have a contract. You can’t do that.” Then, he said that he would “file in federal court” against ACF. The next business day, ACF filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri asking the court to rule that retiree benefits were not vested and that ACF accordingly could alter benefits unilaterally. On January 26, 2004, Mr. Chapman, other named plaintiffs, and their union sued ACF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Pendent Jurisdiction in Australia—Section 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

1979 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. C. Gummow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Statutory Law ◽  
The Future

The Federal Court of Australia has only the jurisdiction conferred on it by statute. However, many disputes falling within that jurisdiction, particularly in trade practices matters, will also involve elements of common law or other State or federal statutory law. Section 32 invests in the Federal Court additional jurisdiction in some such cases in respect of “associated matters”. This may be compared with “pendent jurisdiction” developed by the federal courts in the United States. The object of this article is to analyse the meaning of the term “associated matters” and to consider the bearing it has upon the future relationship between the Federal Court and the various State courts.

28 USC § 1782—looking for consensus

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-345
Author(s):  
David J Stute
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Since the 1948 enactment of 28 USC § 1782 in the United States, no consensus has emerged as to the availability of federal court discovery to parties in private foreign or international arbitral proceedings. This year, within months of one another, six federal courts have issued rulings that are widely inconsistent on the availability of section 1782 discovery. The courts have ruled that a proceeding before a private international arbitral tribunal is eligible for section 1782 discovery; that, categorically, no such discovery is available; that the definition of private arbitral tribunal applies to CIETAC; and that discovery is available by virtue of a party’s parallel pursuit of discovery through foreign civil proceedings. As these cases demonstrate, recent US court decisions have brought no predictability, let alone certainty, to the subject. Congress, on the other hand, could and should amend the statute so as to include private tribunals in the scope of section 1782. This article discusses the case law’s state of disarray; proposes a legislative solution; considers the proposed amendment’s merits; and advocates for Congress to act.

The United States: Creation, Reconstruction, the Progressives, and the Modern Era

2021 ◽  
pp. 97-182
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
American People ◽  
State Governments ◽  
State Laws

This chapter focuses on the origins and growth of judicial review of the constitutionality of federal and state legislation in the United States. American judicial review emerged from the vertical federalism umpiring of the King-in-Council, which reined in errant colonies; and from the open political space created by bicameralism, the separation of powers, and federalism, which gave the federal courts the political leeway to engage in judicial review of the constitutionality of federal and state laws. American judicial review took its present form of allowing horizontal separation of powers and enumerated powers vertical judicial review during the critical years between 1776 and 1803 when the faith of the American people shifted away from state legislatures and state governments and toward stronger executives and courts and a much stronger national government. This theory is set forth correctly by Professor Gordon S. Wood in both articles he has shared with me and in conversation. The addition of the three Reconstruction Amendments, and the enormous statutory expansions of federal court jurisdiction and of the number of lower federal court judges after the Civil War, occurred for rights from wrongs reasons. They led, after the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states between 1940 and 1970, to a situation where the Supreme Court now reins in errant state legislatures in much the same way the King-in-Council used to rein in errant colonial legislatures.

scholarly journals The Four Doctrines of Self-Executing Treaties

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (4) ◽  
pp. 695-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Self ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Tremendous Amount

A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are “self-executing” and those that are not. The precise nature of this distinction—indeed, its very existence—is a matter of some controversy’ and much confusion. More than one lower federal court has pronounced the distinction to be the “most confounding” in the United States law of treaties. A tremendous amount of scholarship has sought to clarify this distinction, but the honest observer cannot but agree with John Jackson’s observation that “[t]he substantial volume of scholarly writing on this issue has not yet resolved the confusion” surrounding it. The continuing, and remarkably candid, judicial confusion over this issue will, I hope, excuse yet another attempt to bring some coherence to the doctrine. In this article, I argue that much of the doctrinal disarray and judicial confusion is attributable to the failure of courts and commentators to recognize that for some time four distinct “doctrines” of self-executing treaties have been masquerading as one. With a view to furthering the development of doctrine in conformity with constitutional allocations of power, I identify these four “doctrines,” as reflected in the self-execution decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, and I examine the very different types of analysis that they call for.

Capacity, Attitudes, and Case Attributes: The Differential Success of the States before the United States Courts of Appeals

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rorie Spill Solberg ◽  
Leonard Ray
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
The Past ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Adoption And Implementation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Over Time

In the past few decades, the states have gained more discretion over policy adoption and implementation. Some of this expanded discretion has resulted from federal court rulings, as the states have increasingly used these courts to achieve their policy goals. But some states are more successful in the federal courts than others. Why is this? We examine cases argued by states in the United States Courts of Appeals between 1970 and 1996 to answer this question. Contrary to research at the Supreme Court level, we find no overall trend that the states are becoming more efficacious in court over time. We also find that the differences among the states' success in court cannot be attributed simply, or even primarily, to disparities in resources. Rather, case attributes and judicial attitudes provide the best explanations for state success in the Courts of Appeals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document