Search

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court's in the case Home Depot v. Jackson which misapplied the well-pleaded complaint rule and misinterpreted the doctrine of original jurisdiction and meaning of defendant. It mentions prevented from removing qualifying class actions under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). It also mentions the structural and textual errors that led to the Court's incorrect holding.

From 2010 through 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court received on average 250 petitions each year under Colorado Rule of Appellate Procedure 21 (Rule 21)--about one for every working day. In these "Rule 21 petitions," litigants ask the court to exercise its original jurisdiction and grant relief from a lower court or tribunal's ruling, action, or inaction where no other adequate appellate remedy is available. Significantly, the court has agreed to grant this entirely discretionary relief in only a small fraction of those cases. The great disparity between the number of petitions the court receives and the number of cases the court ultimately agrees to review suggests, perhaps, that Colorado litigants might benefit from a Rule 21 primer. That is what we set out to provide in this Article. We begin by briefly explaining what Rule 21 is and how it operates. Next, we share statistics that highlight the court's recent Rule 21 proceedings. Most notably, the statistics reveal the small percentage of petitions that the court agrees to grant. After supplying that background information, we offer practical considerations about filing Rule 21 petitions that we hope will inform litigants whether seeking relief through Rule 21 is appropriate and, if so, how best to present a petition. To aid in this discussion, we apply some of these practical considerations to cases in which the court agreed to exercise its original jurisdiction and issued an opinion. We hope that sharing these considerations will teach practitioners about Rule 21 and help litigants decide whether their case merits relief through the exercise of what the supreme court has called an "extraordinary remedy.". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents practical advice for American attorneys on how to keep litigation matters in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after the court issues jurisdictional questions, and it mentions concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction. America's Constitution is addressed, along with U.S. federal district courts' original jurisdiction over civil actions. Legal complaints, diversity jurisdiction, and the removal of litigation to another court are assessed.

The article discusses the author's proposal for expanding equity in American courts as of 2016, and it mentions the origins of equity in the U.S. Constitution and the nation's Judiciary Act of 1789, as well as the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) case Kansas v. Nebraska which deals with issues such as American natural resources law and the USSC's original jurisdiction. The USSC's equitable power is examined in the 1999 case Grupo Mexicano de Desarollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc.

The article discusses equitable apportionment legal cases in the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of the court's ruling in the case Florida v. Georgia which deals with riparian rights, conservation measures, and prior appropriation principles. Other topics include original jurisdiction, a fair allocation legal principle, and case law regarding water law systems in America. A harm-benefit comparison is mentioned, along with state laws and an American riparian doctrine.

Interstate water disputes have long been a mainstay of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, the traditional forum for sovereign states to resolve their water wars peaceably. For over a century, these remained disputes between sovereigns: until 2010, when the Court permitted a private power company to intervene in such a dispute. The decision was an affront to state sovereign control of water resources, but its implications reach beyond dignitary concerns. Under the public trust doctrine, states have long held a fiduciary responsibility to allocate water resources within their borders in the interests of their citizens. As global climate change and the increasing demands of energy production continue to stress America's water resources, the Court's decision will further complicate states' efforts to enact sound water policy for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When interstate water disputes come before it, the U.S. Supreme Court can order states to pay large damage awards or to forfeit use of a significant amount of water. The high stakes in these original jurisdiction cases make the Court's use of and deference to Special Masters problematic for states, which need litigation to produce reasonably predictable outcomes so that litigation is as a viable alternative to negotiated agreements. The Court does states a great disservice by handling cases involving interstate water disputes in a seemingly unpredictable and unstructured manner. The Court's deference to the Special Master in Montana v. Wyoming is the latest example of a pattern of judicial abdication in interstate water disputes. This Note presents several specific recommendations, proposes a rule for analyzing exceptions to a Special Master's report, and discusses the potential for instituting a two-person panel of Special Masters that includes an Article III judge. If the Supreme Court is unwilling to make changes to better address states' substantial interests in original jurisdiction cases, future Special Masters should exert their considerable influence to encourage the Court's comprehensive engagement with interstate water disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the choice of law doctrine and the scope of liability under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's 2010 ruling in the corporate liability case Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. A historical overview of the ATS is presented, including information on the original jurisdiction of district courts in civil cases adjudicated in America. An interlocutory appeal under Title 28, Section 1292(b) of the U.S. Code is also examined.