Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Upside down and inside out: appellate review of discretion under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. s. 1367

Article Abstract:

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. section 1367 in 1990 to codify the common law concepts of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction under a new name, supplemental jurisdiction. This statute gives federal courts the discretion to adjudicate state law claims that spring from a federal cause of action. However, the statute's ambiguous wording appeared to distort the Supreme Court's original standard for this jurisdiction. The district courts have applied the statute inconsistently because of this ambiguity.

Author: Malkani, Shirin
Publisher: Oceana Publications, Inc.
Publication Name: Annual Survey of American Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0066-4413
Year: 1997
Appellate procedure, Appeals (Law), Supplemental jurisdiction

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


For Tom Joad and Tom Robinson: the moral obligation to defend the poor

Article Abstract:

Clinical legal education is the best means of teaching law students the importance of providing legal assistance to the poor. The need for social responsibility among lawyers is especially important in a time in which the cultural climate exhibits outright hostility to poor people. Lawyers are obligated to meet their moral obligation of addressing social ills.

Author: Smith, Abbe
Publisher: Oceana Publications, Inc.
Publication Name: Annual Survey of American Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0066-4413
Year: 1997
Law, Clinical legal education, Legal assistance to the poor, Ethical aspects

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


Welcome to California, Tom Joad: an historical perspective on Saenz v. Roe stirring the Privileges or Immunities Clause from its Slaughter-House slumber

Article Abstract:

The author argues that the protection of fundamental rights should be grounded in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Using the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, he contends, allows judges too much power in deciding which rights are "fundamental."

Author: Williams, Duncan E.
Publisher: Oceana Publications, Inc.
Publication Name: New York University Annual Survey of American Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0066-4413
Year: 2001
Equality before the law, Equal protection, Protection and preservation, Due process of law, Civil rights

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Laws, regulations and rules, Judicial discretion
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Rewriting the great writ: standards of review for habeas corpus under the new 28 U.S.C. s. 2254. Powers of Congress and the court regarding the availability and scope of review
  • Abstracts: Herbal garden of good and evil: the ongoing struggles of dietary supplement regulation. A bridge to far: the EPA's diesel sulfur rule and the increasing cost of fuels regulation under the Clean Air Act
  • Abstracts: Courts do not see eye to eye on scope of protection for product design after the patent expires. 'Bayer' highlights debate on research method use; patent won't cover fruit of offshore research not made with the method
  • Abstracts: Stock acquisitions and liquidations by S corporations: availability of benefits afforded by sections 332 and 338
  • Abstracts: Alternative dispute resolution can beat litigation. On-line transactions intensify trader vs. investor question
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.