Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

The scope of the Van Dusen rule in federal-question transfers

Article Abstract:

The Van Dusen rule, which holds that the law of the transferring state applies to claims that are in federal courts based on diversity jurisdiction and removed to a more convenient forum, should be extended to apply the decisional law of the transferring district court when a claim based on federal question jurisdiction is transferred. Such an extension would resolve choice of law problems created by conflicting district court interpretations of federal law. It would also prevent forum shopping and allow judges to transfer venue based on the availability of greater jurisdictional contacts alone, two policies underlying the Van Dusen rule.

Author: Fini, Tom M.
Publisher: Oceana Publications, Inc.
Publication Name: Annual Survey of American Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0066-4413
Year: 1993
Conflict of laws, Transfer of cause

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The effectiveness of an unpublished rule

Article Abstract:

An agency should be required to apply a rule, publish it, and comply with notice and comment procedures to change the rule once it has been filed with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). Rules often remain unpublished during changes of administration and for other reasons. Courts have held that unpublished rules may be enforced as long as actual and timely notice of the rule was received. The agencies' need for flexibility can be balanced with the prevention of arbitrariness by the proposed standard regarding filing with the OFR.

Author: Newman, Robert
Publisher: Oceana Publications, Inc.
Publication Name: Annual Survey of American Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0066-4413
Year: 1995
Other General Government Support, Agencies-Administrative, Analysis, Administrative procedure, Notice (Law)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Why judges, not juries, should set punitive damages

Article Abstract:

The power to award punitive damages should not reside with juries in federal civil trials but with judges. The US Supreme Court ruled in Tull v. United States that the plaintiff was not entitled to a jury-determined penalty under the 7th Amendment and other federal judges have ruled that punitive damages do not constitute a fact which can be tried by a jury. Because juries are not constitutionally empowered to set punitive damage amounts, judges should assume the power under existing law and procedure rules.

Author: Mogin, Paul
Publisher: University of Chicago Law School
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1998
Management, Economic aspects, Exemplary damages, Powers and duties, Punitive damages, Judicial power, Jury, Juries

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Laws, regulations and rules, Federal courts, United States
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Ascent of the corporate model in environmental-organized crime. Organized crime: a social network approach
  • Abstracts: The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts in Delaware. Japan's new product liability law: the citadel of strict liability falls, but access to recovery is limited by formidable barriers
  • Abstracts: Two concepts of mediation in the FmHA's farmer-lender mediation program. Implementation of the children's health insurance program: HHS, states, and lessons for national health reform
  • Abstracts: Disablement of software risks and potential liabilities. Acquiring rights in software documentation and databases
  • Abstracts: The danger of winning: contract law ramifications of successful Bailey challenges for plea-convicted defendants
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.