Thursday, October 11, 2012

SCOTUS Oral Argument in Fisher v. University of Texas

Yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas has garnered a lot of attention—you can find a host of links at SCOTUSblog’s Thursday round-up.

The argument included several interesting exchanges on the issue of whether Ms. Fisher has standing to challenge the university’s admissions policies (transcript available here):

  • On pp.3-8, the plaintiff’s counsel (Mr. Rein) responds to questions by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Scalia.
  • On pp.54-56, the university’s counsel (Mr. Garre) responds to questions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.
  • On pp.72-74, the plaintiff’s counsel (Mr. Rein) responds to questions by Justice Sotomayor.

Also on the civil procedure and federal courts front is yesterday’s post by Prof. Sherrilyn Ifill (Maryland) on Concurring Opinions, which discusses the refusal of many courts to allow minority students to intervene (Fed. R. Civ. P. 24) in cases where affirmative action policies are being challenged.

--A

October 11, 2012 in Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Miller on Closing the Courthouse Doors

Concord Law School invites our readers to attend a talk by Professor Arthur Miller (NYU) on Saturday, October 20th at the University Club of Pasadena, entitled Don't Look Now, But They May Be Closing The Courthouse Doors.

Download Invitation (Arthur Miller Lecture)

You can RSVP by phone (310.689.3216) or email.

October 9, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1)

Grossi on the Case-by-Case Approach to Personal Jurisdiction

Professor Simona Grossi (Loyola Los Angeles) has posted on SSRN a draft of her article, A Solution to the Problems Generated by the Supreme Court’s Case-by-Case Approach to Personal Jurisdiction. Here’s the abstract:

The current plethora of doctrines surrounding the law of personal jurisdiction has added more confusion to the law than it has coherence. Among other things, these doctrines confuse the sufficient with the necessary and they elevate the technicalities of doctrine over the fundamental principles at stake. The 2011 Supreme Court’s opinions, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro are just two recent examples of that phenomenon.

This article argues that since the decision in International Shoe, which focused more on fundamental principles than it did on the niceties of doctrine, the Supreme Court has moved more steadily toward a technical and specialized approach to personal jurisdiction doctrine that has ended up confusing lower courts and the Supreme Court itself. Thus, by deconstructing the law of personal jurisdiction, and carefully examining over one hundred years of the Court’s jurisprudence as well as lower courts’ confusion, the article suggests to clear the confusion by returning to the principles traceable to International Shoe and Pennoyer and codifying them in a “due-process-style” rule premised on connecting factors and expectations.

--A

October 9, 2012 in Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Call for Papers: Texas Wesleyan Law Review

From the call for papers:

The Texas Wesleyan Law Review, flagship law review of the Texas Wesleyan School of Law, invites submissions for its Spring Issue. We welcome an article or essay addressing any topic of the author’s choosing.

Please direct submissions and any questions to Jamie Winchenbach, Editor in Chief, via email at jaime.winchenbach@gmail.com

--A

October 9, 2012 in Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, October 8, 2012

SCOTUS Cert Grant of Interest: Gunn v. Minton

Last week the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Gunn v. Minton (No. 11-1118), which presents the question:

Did the Federal Circuit depart from the standard this Court articulated in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), for "arising under" jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1338, when it held that state law legal malpractice claims against trial lawyers for their handling of underlying patent matters come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts? Because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patents, are state courts and federal courts strictly following the Federal Circuit's mistaken standard, thereby magnifying its jurisdictional error and sweeping broad swaths of state law claims - which involve no actual patents and have no impact on actual patent rights - into the federal courts?

You can find a link to the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion below and other information about the case at SCOTUSblog’s case file.

--A

October 8, 2012 in Federal Courts, Recent Decisions, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)