Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1989: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, First Session, on H.R. 3406 ... November 15, 1989U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990 - 334 sider |
Inni boken
Resultat 1-5 av 45
Side 1
... awards . The legislation before the subcommittee today , H.R. 3406 , was the subject of subcommittee hearings in the last Congress and was ultimately passed by the House as part of the Court Reform and Access to Justice Act . The bill ...
... awards . The legislation before the subcommittee today , H.R. 3406 , was the subject of subcommittee hearings in the last Congress and was ultimately passed by the House as part of the Court Reform and Access to Justice Act . The bill ...
Side 18
... awards of punitive damages . " Section 4 of the bill provides , however , that an action " shall be remanded to the district court from which [ it ] was transferred , or to the State court from which [ it ] was removed , for the ...
... awards of punitive damages . " Section 4 of the bill provides , however , that an action " shall be remanded to the district court from which [ it ] was transferred , or to the State court from which [ it ] was removed , for the ...
Side 35
... awards of punitive damages by giving the transferee court explicit authority to retain jurisdiction for punitive damages determinations . have asked for our views on this subject as well . You We believe that the single state choice of ...
... awards of punitive damages by giving the transferee court explicit authority to retain jurisdiction for punitive damages determinations . have asked for our views on this subject as well . You We believe that the single state choice of ...
Side 42
... Solution to the Choice of Law Impasse , 96 Yale L. J. at 1080-1088 ( discussing practical problems district courts face in choice of law questions in mass tort cases ) . - 8 section 1658's " single jurisdiction " rule will either award 42.
... Solution to the Choice of Law Impasse , 96 Yale L. J. at 1080-1088 ( discussing practical problems district courts face in choice of law questions in mass tort cases ) . - 8 section 1658's " single jurisdiction " rule will either award 42.
Side 43
... award recovery to plaintiffs who would be denied it by their own states ' rules or ( more likely ) will deny recovery to plaintiffs who would be entitled to it by their own states ' rules ( see Joint Statement at 19-20 ) . We do not ...
... award recovery to plaintiffs who would be denied it by their own states ' rules or ( more likely ) will deny recovery to plaintiffs who would be entitled to it by their own states ' rules ( see Joint Statement at 19-20 ) . We do not ...
Vanlige uttrykk og setninger
accident adjudication Agent Orange Air Crash Disaster alternative dispute resolution amended American Bar Association apply asbestos attorneys Bendectin bill causation choice of law civil claimants class action Commission on Mass Commission's Committee common issues complex litigation CONGRESS THE LIBRARY consolidated mass tort consolidated proceeding consolidation of mass counsel Dalkon Shield defendant determination disaster litigation district court diversity jurisdiction efficient event or occurrence federal choice federal court filed Hotel Fire House of Delegates individual issues involving Judge Schwarzer judicial panel jury Justice KASTENMEIER law rules law standards LIBRARY OF CONGRESS mass tort litigation minimal diversity Multiforum Jurisdiction multiparty multiple parties permit personal injury plaintiffs procedures Products Liability Litigation proposals punitive damage awards punitive damage claims recommendations remand require single event state's law substantial substantive law Supp supra tion tort actions tort claims tort law Tort Liability System Toxic Tort transfer transferee court trial WRUBEL
Populære avsnitt
Side 264 - A corporation may be sued In any Judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes.
Side 71 - ... (2) a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of any State, and a citizen or subject of any foreign state, in which it is incorporated or has its principal place of business, and is deemed to be a resident of any State in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business; and "(3) 'injury' means physical harm to a natural person and physical damage to or destruction of tangible property.
Side 18 - For the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice...
Side 79 - [F]or a state's substantive law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, that State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts [with the parties and the occurrence or transaction] , creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.
Side 39 - Friendly, In Praise of Erie— And of the New Federal Common Law, 39 NYUL Rev.
Side 42 - One federal district court judge has complained that "(t]he law on 'choice of law' in the various states and in the federal courts is a veritable jungle, which, if the law can be found out, leads not to a 'rule of action' but a reign of chaos dominated in each case by the judge's 'informed guess' as to what some other state than the one in which he sits would hold its law to be.
Side 293 - I began the opinion by saying "[o]ur principal task ... is to determine what the New York courts would think the California courts would think on an issue about which neither has thought.
Side 39 - Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" (4th ed. 1873), sec. 1218; 1 Crosskey, "Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States,
Side 328 - The Federal Judge as a Case Manager: The New Role in Guiding a Case from Filing to Disposition,
Side 80 - II, which found adequate contacts to sustain the choice of forum law,104 is that for a State's substantive law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, that State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.