Federal Jurisdiction. Three-Judge District Court Held without Jurisdiction to Enjoin Enforcement of State Law as Unconstitutional Absent Determination of This Issue by State Court

1955 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 664 ◽  
Jurnal Akta ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 475
Author(s):  
Eka Hendra Muspiyanto ◽  
Gunarto Gunarto

This researchaims to determine how the execution Encumbrance through an auction to be determined by the District Court of Pekalongan and what weaknesses and execution Mortgage solution through an auction to be determined by the District Court of Pekalongan. Mortgage execution through an auction based on the determination District Court of Pekalongan held upon the request of the winning bidder. Request execution Mortgage by auction by the auction winner made after terlelang not willing to vacate voluntarily execution object. Mortgage weakness execution through an auction based on the determination that the District Court Pekalongan there are two opinions on the application process execution Encumbrance through an auction to be determined by the District Court if there is a lawsuit against the object of the auction following the application execution. The first opinion the petition can still be processed until the issuance of the determination of the District Court. The second opinion request for execution should be delayed pending completion of a lawsuit against the auction object. This is due to the absence of explicit provision governing the execution Mortgage application process through the auction in case there is a lawsuit in the execution object, especially if there is a lawsuit against the object of execution in case the application execution has been carried out. Similarly, in the case of the emergence of a lawsuit before the application for execution is done. Whether the execution can be carried out or not. This gives rise to a variety of opinions that may be detrimental to the winning bidder. For it should be no explicit provision governing the execution Mortgage application process through the auction in case there is a lawsuit in the execution object other drawback is the resistance of the current terkesekusi will be executed.Keywords: Execution; Mortgage; Auctions; Determination.


1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-568
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez

Plaintiffs and respondents, Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. and United Carriers, Inc., were respectively the charterer and owner of the Hercules, a crude oil tanker that was bombed in international waters by Argentine military aircraft during the war over the Malvinas or Falkland Islands. The ship was severely damaged and had to be scuttled off the coast of Brazil. After unsuccessfully seeking relief in Argentina, the companies filed suit against defendant and appellant, the Argentine Republic, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs argued that the federal courts had jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350 (1982)), which confers federal jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) is by its terms the sole basis of federal jurisdiction over cases against foreign states. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court (per Rehnquist, C.J.) unanimously reversed the Second Circuit and held that the FSIA provides the exclusive basis of federal jurisdiction over suits against foreign states.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. Walsh

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Section 25 has long been thought to be one of the most important provisions of the most important jurisdictional statute enacted by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave concrete institutional shape to a federal judiciary only incompletely defined by Article III. And section 25 supplied a key piece of the structural relationship between the previously existing state court systems and the new federal court system that Congress constructed with the Act. It provided for Supreme Court appellate review of certain state court decisions denying the federal-law-based rights of certain litigants.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document