FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1548208644> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1548208644 abstract "In the title of his influential article, Federal 'Question' in the District Courts, Professor Paul Mishkin reminded us that the phrase is a misnomer as a description of the arising jurisdiction of the district courts. The purpose of the arising jurisdiction of the district courts is not solely, or even primarily, to resolve disputed questions of federal law, but to provide a hospitable forum for the vindication of federal rights. Such rights can be frustrated by an inhospitable forum not just through the misinterpretation of federal law, but through misinterpretation of state law or through biased fact-finding. For this reason, Professor Mishkin acknowledged that, in place of the term question, [a]ccuracy . . . would be better served by some such term as 'federal claim.' Although this was a central insight of the part of Professor Mishkin's article discussing the scope of the statutory grant of federal arising jurisdiction, it is also the key to understanding the proper scope of the arising clause of Article III. The failure to keep this point in mind explains much of the broad, controversial language in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, language that the Supreme Court and commentators have subsequently hesitated to embrace. Had the Court viewed Osborn as a case, it could have upheld the statute in somewhat narrower terms. More recently, in Verlinden v. Central Bank of Nigeria, in considering the validity of a statute conferring jurisdiction over cases brought by aliens against foreign states, the Court adhered to Osborn's paradigm but distanced itself from its remote possibility test. It upheld the statute on the theory that every case that the statute permitted to be adjudicated in the federal courts involved an actual question of federal law, namely, whether the foreign state was entitled to immunity under the standards of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). This holding is unsatisfying because, under the statute, there is no need for the court to consider any question of foreign sovereign immunity if the defendant appears but does not raise an immunity defense. A analysis would have yielded a more persuasive rationale for upholding the statute.Part I of this Article explains why the analysis in Osborn is unpersuasive, and how a analysis would have provided a more convincing, and narrower, rationale for the holding. Part II explains why the Court's analysis in Verlinden is similarly unpersuasive and how a analysis would once again have produced a more convincing decision. Part III explores the outer boundaries of federal claim theory. I conclude that federal claim analysis supports a congressional grant of jurisdiction over any class of cases over which Congress has legislative power. Congress may confer jurisdiction over such cases by creating a federal claim that adopts or incorporates as federal law whatever state or foreign law would otherwise govern the dispute. The effective scope of Congress's power under the adoption approach would be the same as under Professor Wechsler's version of protective jurisdiction. Professor Wechsler was right to claim that the greater power to confer jurisdiction by displacing state law includes the lesser power to confer jurisdiction without displacing state law. Federal claim analysis shows that Congress may confer jurisdiction over claims it creates in order to make available a more (or less) hospitable forum for the adjudication of such claims. That justification for conferring jurisdiction is also compelling when the federal claim that Congress has created is to be resolved by reference to federal law that does not differ in content from the state or foreign law that would otherwise apply." @default.
• W1548208644 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1548208644 creator A5049455071 @default.
• W1548208644 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W1548208644 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1548208644 title "The Federal “Claim” in the District Courts: Osborn, Verlinden, and Protective Jurisdiction" @default.
• W1548208644 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1548208644 type Work @default.
• W1548208644 sameAs 1548208644 @default.
• W1548208644 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1548208644 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1548208644 hasAuthorship W1548208644A5049455071 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C2776449231 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C2777006572 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C2779204856 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C2780755764 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C158129432 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C17319257 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C17744445 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C199539241 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C2776449231 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C2776949292 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C2777006572 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C2777351106 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C2778272461 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C2779204856 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C2780755764 @default.
• W1548208644 hasConceptScore W1548208644C87501996 @default.
• W1548208644 hasLocation W15482086441 @default.
• W1548208644 hasOpenAccess W1548208644 @default.
• W1548208644 hasPrimaryLocation W15482086441 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W133835571 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W1511184997 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W1544606746 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W1556806763 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W1954725656 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W2238665797 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W2256213434 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W2582386291 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W305095276 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3121360294 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3122332517 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3122371241 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3122561581 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3123297132 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3123316665 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3123876127 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3124156505 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W3125238247 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W314235926 @default.
• W1548208644 hasRelatedWork W76916181 @default.
• W1548208644 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1548208644 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1548208644 magId "1548208644" @default.
• W1548208644 workType "article" @default.