Three legal judgement posts in four days by the resident lawyer?
Could we at least keep the legalese under the fold and have the post explained for the "not a lawyer" crowd above the fold?
cribcage, do you actually read metafilter? There's been a fair amount of good, non-political filter lately.
MetaFilter: If it's dios, we'll bitch about it.
Supplemental jurisdiction gives federal courts jurisdiction over class actions involving state law claims. Most plaintiffs like to bring their state-law claims in state court, while corporations like to remove those cases to federal court where they perceive a better chance of prevailing.
"[This US code] was a controversial and confusing attempt by Congress to codify and address the issue of Supplemental Jurisdiction established in [prior] cases. The Supreme Court tried to clarify some of the confusing issues regarding this code in a 2005 opinion. The question of whether the Court clarified the issue or made it more complicated remains arguably nanswered."
"The 2005 Annual Survey on Choice of Law in American Courts. The survey on Choice of Law looks at the recent controversial Supreme Court ruling dealing with conflict of laws. At issue in Spector was whether disability statutes applied to ships that depart from Texas and travel through domestic waters but fly under the flag of the Bahamas."
"[A] Proposed Federal Rule is an attempt to resolve a dispute in federal court practice over the propriety of citations to unpublished opinions. It is an argument that has been played out in academic papers and Circuit Courts. Judge Richard Arnold of the 8th Circuit, writing for the majority, held that local rules which declare that unpublished opinions are not precedent are unconstitutional under Article III. [One case], vacated as moot on reh'g en banc. Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit disagreed, holding that nonprecedential decisions are not inconsistent with the exercise of the judicial power. The proposed Rule would resolve the circuit split, but the debate rages on."
28 U.S.C 1367
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)
Zahn v. International Paper, Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973)
Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989)
Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., (2005)
(Kennedy, J., writing for the Court)
(Stevens, J., dissenting)
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting)
See Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 125 S.Ct. 2169 (2005).
(Kennedy, J., writing the opinion of the Court)
(Ginsburg, J., concurring)
(Scalia, J., dissenting)
(Thomas, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part)
Other 2005 Supreme Court conflict of laws cases included Small v. United States and Pasquantino v. United States.
Appellate Procedure 32.1. Proposed Rule 32.1 [.pdf]
Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 900(8th Cir. 2000)
Hart v. Massanari, 226 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 2001)\