Civil Procedure. Personal Jurisdiction. D. C. Circuit Holds That a Foreign State Is Not a "Person" under the Due Process Clause. Price v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82 (D. C. Cir. 2002)

2003 ◽  
Vol 116 (5) ◽  
pp. 1517
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

scholarly journals The Forgotten Property Right

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-528
Author(s):  
Peter Kuylen
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Property Right ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
At Home

With its move to the “at home” standard in Goodyear, Daimler, and BNSF, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporation defendants. This restriction offers questionable actual benefits to corporate defendants, but its rigid focus on defendant’s rights has impacted the ability of certain plaintiffs to bring a cause of action against those defendants. Because the at home standard infringes on this group of plaintiffs’ ability to assert their property right of redress in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), the Court should return to the previous “continuous and systematic contacts” standard developed under International Shoe. Hundreds of articles have been written in the four years since Daimler erased fifty years of general personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. But because personal jurisdiction analysis is traditionally defendant focused, there is little mention of the plaintiff’s property right in access to the courts in that literature. Personal jurisdiction rules should protect a defendant’s interests, but not to the total forfeiture of a plaintiff’s property right. Recognizing the at home standard as a misstep would resolve this constitutional conflict.

scholarly journals Conversão da ação individual em ação coletiva: análise do conteúdo do artigo 333 do CPC/2015, das razões do veto da presidente da república e do aproveitamento do instituto no atual sistema processual/ Conversion from individual in collective action: analysis of the content from the article 333 in CPC/2015, the reasons of the veto of the President of the Republic and the use of the institute on current procedural system

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 389
Author(s):  
Eduardo Cambi ◽  
Marcos Vargas Fogaça
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Analytical Method ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Action Analysis ◽  
Collective Process ◽  
The Republic

O presente trabalho busca difundir o processo coletivo como instrumento para a melhoria da prestação jurisdicional. Também pretende a concretização das garantias constitucionais do direito processual brasileiro, corolários do devido processo legal coletivo, a partir de uma análise da conversão da ação individual em ação coletiva. Tal sugestão estava presente originalmente no artigo 333 do Código de Processo Civil de 2015 (NCPC), cuja inovação foi vetada pela Presidência da República. Para tanto, utiliza-se do método analítico de decomposição do instituto para analisar melhor cada especificidade. A conversão da demanda individual em demanda coletiva, prevista no texto vetado do NCPC, traria grandes conquistas a efetivação da justiça qualitativa, prestada de forma célere e efetiva. Assim, verifica-se a inconsistência do veto, uma vez que o instituto não estava mal disciplinado e permitia a convivência harmônica das técnicas de tutela coletiva de direitos com repercussão individual com as técnicas individuais de repercussão coletiva na sistemática processual civil brasileira. A partir da análise do incidente de coletivização, procura-se verificar em que medida tal instituto ainda pode ser aproveitado no atual sistema processual brasileiro.Palavras chave: Processo coletivo. Conversão da ação individual em ação coletiva. Veto ao Código de Processo Civil de 2015.AbstractThis study aims to spread the collective process as an instrument to the improvement of jurisdictional assistance and implementation of the constitutional principles of the Brazilian procedural law, corollaries of collective due process, on the basis of the analysis of conversion from individual in collective action, presents originally on article 333 of Civil Procedure Code of 2015, which was vetoed by the Presidency of the republic. Therefore, the analytical method of decomposition institute is used to better analyze each specificity. As the institute was regulated, the conversion from individual in collective action would bring great achievements to qualitative justice enforcement. Accordingly, there is inconsistency in Presidency’s veto, considering the institute wasn’t weak disciplined and there was the need for harmonious coexistence of rights collective protection techniques with individual techniques of collective repercussion on Brazilian civil procedure system.KeywordsCollective process. Conversion from individual in collective action. Veto on the Civil Procedure Code of 2015.

scholarly journals Rights of Due Process in Civil Procedurs of Some Countries in the World an in Vietnam

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nguyen Van Quan ◽  
Nguyen Bich Thao
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Legal Science ◽  
The World ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

Currently, civil procedure legal science in the world begins to study the application of fair procedural rights. Meanwhile, Vietnamese civil procedure legal science seems to pay attention to the proceedings instead of the procedural rights. In this context, the paper examines the application of rights of due process around the world and in Vietnam. From there, the author suggests a number of appropriate orientations in this area that Vietnam should apply in the near future in order to match the trend in the world and the reality of Vietnam. Keywords: Civil procedure, due process, rights of due process, human rights. References: [1] Rhonda Wasserman, Procedural Due Process: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004.[2] E. Thomas Sullivan and Toni M. Massaro, The Arc of Due Process in American Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press, 2013.[3] Khoa Luật Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, Giáo trình Luật tố tụng dân sự Việt Nam, NXB. Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội.[4] European Court of Human Rights (2013), Guide to Article 6: The Right to a Fair Trial (Civil Limb), http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf.[5] C.H. Van Rhee & Alan Uzelac (eds.), Truth and Efficiency in Civil Litigation: Fundamental Aspects of Fact-Finding and Evidence-Taking in a Comparative Context, Intersentia, 2012, pp. 5-6.    

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document