Supreme Court of the United States Jurisdiction

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court Establishes New Standards: Removal Pleadings Now Less Burdensome For State Court Suits

Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that a notice of removal from state court to federal court requires only pleading good faith allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds a jurisdictional threshold. The...more

Who Needs Proof? Not The Notice of Removal.

In a previous blog, we explained that the Supreme Court was considering whether a defendant merely has to allege jurisdictional facts or provide evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case....more

Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard Governing Removal of Class Action Cases to Federal Court

The US Supreme Court ruled last Monday that class action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in support of their attempts to remove a case from state to federal court. Rather, they need only include in their...more

Removing a Barrier: The Supreme Court Holds That, Under CAFA, Notices of Removal Need Not Include Evidence Supporting the Amount...

On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens that a class action defendant need only allege the requisite amount of controversy “plausibly” in the notice of...more

No Proof Necessary: SCOTUS Rules Defendant’s Notice Of Removal Under CAFA Need Not Include Evidence of The Amount In Controversy

On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split in holding that a defendant need not supply evidence of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act...more

Supreme Court: Evidence of Amount in Controversy Not Required at Removal

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant removing a putative class action from state to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) need not submit evidence to...more

Supreme Court Confirms That A Notice Of Removal Requires Only A “Plausible Allegation” That The Amount In Controversy Has Been Met

The Supreme Court has held that a notice of removal requires only a “plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and confirmed that a notice of removal need not include evidence...more

The United States Supreme Court Holds That a Defendant’s Notice of Removal Need Only Include a “Plausible Allegation” That the...

On December 15, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC, et al. v. Owens.1 Writing for the 5 – 4 majority, Justice Ginsberg held that a defendant’s notice of removal pursuant to...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Fairness Act’s Removal Requirement: 'Liberal Rules' Do Not Require Evidence of Amount in...

Class action defendants need not include evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in...more

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Removing Class Actions to Federal Court

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719, a case involving the procedural requirements for removing a class action from state to federal court under the Class...more

U.S. Supreme Court Eases CAFA Removals

Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005, in response to perceived (in fact real) concerns regarding potential abuses of the class action process. Among CAFA’s important provisions was the right to remove...more

Supreme Court Opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719. Unsurprisingly, the Court held that a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act does not need to...more

Supreme Court Decides Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719, holding that a notice of removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and the Class...more

The Supreme Court Keeps Its “Stern” Promise Not To Change Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction

The bankruptcy bench and bar breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court issued Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.), No. 12-1200 (June 9, 2014) (“Bellingham”). Its...more

Supreme Court Asked to Allow Immediate Judicial Review of Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Determinations

A landfill developer has asked the Supreme Court to review a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that a jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not final agency action subject to judicial review....more

Ninth Circuit Holds That "Tag Jurisdiction" Does Not Apply to Corporations - The Court's Decision Limits Personal Jurisdiction...

Following closely on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark personal jurisdiction decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a decision that further reinforces the...more

Losing The Home-Team Advantage – The Supreme Court’s Narrowing of the Doctrine of General Personal Jurisdiction and its Impact on...

A recent Supreme Court opinion in a non-patent case, Daimler AG v. Bauman, likely will have a far-reaching impact on the prevalence of patent declaratory judgment actions. In the past, an accused patent infringer often could...more

CAFA: Recent Developments on the Jurisdictional and Settlement Fronts

Since Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005, the nation’s class action litigation has increasingly migrated to the federal stage, with plaintiffs bringing more class actions directly to federal court...more

Mind the Statutory Gap (aka A Jurisdictional Mess)

As we all know, on June 9 of this year, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency vs. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165, 189 L. Ed. 2d 83 (2014), which we had hoped would resolve the open...more

US Supreme Court’s Sleight of Hand in Bankruptcy Jurisdiction

With all attention focused on Executive Benefits, the Daimler decision could represent the real sea change in jurisdiction over non-core actions. Introduction - Recently, much of the bankruptcy bar was focused...more

Christmas in July: Will Bankruptcy Lawyers Find a Lump of Coal in Their Stockings?

As spring rolls into summer, bankruptcy practitioners await the Supreme Court’s decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson. With the Supreme Court’s term ending June 30, 2014, some wonder if the Court will,...more

Class Action Roundtable - July 2014

Executive Summary: MODERATOR: What are the implications of Daimler AG v. Bauman? How will the Court’s decision impact the ability to bring class actions against large, multi-site corporations? STEVEN ELLIS:...more

Did The Supreme Court Finally Explain Marathon And Stern? - Executive Benefits’ Impact on Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has spoken once again on the limited jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts, adding to the understanding derived from Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982),...more

Supreme Court Allows Third Circuits GenOn Opinion to Stand: State Law Actions Not Preempted By the Clean Air Act

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of Kristie Bell v. GenOn, where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Clean Air Act did not preempt state common law actions seeking damages for air pollution....more

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Clarify Post-Judgment Remedies Against Foreign Sovereigns

On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., one of the many cases to have arisen out of Argentina’s 2001 default on over $100 billion in sovereign bonds. While...more

114 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5