Admiralty. Federal Court Applies Maritime Rather Than State Law in Diversity Suit for Injury Sustained within State's Territorial Waters

1950 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 525
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
State Law

Culpability Standards in Section 1983 Litigation Against Criminal Justice Officials: When and Why Mental State Matters

2001 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Worrall
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
State Law ◽  
The U.S

Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code provides a remedy in federal court for individuals who suffer constitutional rights violations at the hands of criminal justice officials. To succeed in a Section 1983 lawsuit, a plaintiff must demonstrate a constitutional violation by an official acting under color of state law. Recently, however, courts have begun to require that constitutional rights violations be committed with a certain level of culpability for a finding of liability, a development that has received little attention in the criminal justice literature. Accordingly, this article seeks to (1) sort out the important culpability issues associated with Section 1983 litigation, with particular reference to theories of liability, and (2) discuss the relevance of this inquiry for both academics and practitioners, calling attention to the problems the current multitude of culpability standards pose.

1 Courts and Foreign Affairs

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
State Law ◽  
Government Institutions ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Question

This chapter provides an overview of some of the constitutional, statutory, and common law doctrines that govern the adjudication of foreign affairs–related disputes in the United States. These doctrines include requirements for federal court jurisdiction, “justiciability” limitations such as the political question doctrine, the Erie doctrine concerning federal court application of state law, and the common law “act of state” doctrine. The chapter also discusses more general interpretive principles such as the Charming Betsy canon of construction and deference to the executive branch. The chapter concludes by briefly describing the constitutional authority of U.S. government institutions other than the courts, including the situations in which state law that concerns foreign affairs will be preempted.

1 Courts, Foreign Affairs, and the Structural Constitution

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
State Law ◽  
Government Institutions ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Question

This chapter provides an overview of some of the constitutional, statutory, and common law doctrines that govern the adjudication of foreign affairs-related disputes in the United States. These doctrines include jurisdictional requirements, “justiciability” limitations such as the political question doctrine, the Erie doctrine concerning federal court application of state law, and the common law “act of state” doctrine. The chapter also discusses more general interpretive principles such as the Charming Betsy canon of construction and deference to the executive branch. The chapter concludes by describing the constitutional authority of U.S. government institutions other than the courts, including the situations in which state law that concerns foreign affairs will be preempted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document