Federal-question jurisdiction has always been an elusive concept at its boundaries. The key words, "arising under," have proven to be two of the more versatile words in the English language. They mean different things in different contexts, and over time, they have evolved to mean very different things even in the same context. Last term, in Grable & Sons Metal Products Inc v Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, the Supreme Court issued the latest edition of its "arising under" dictionary. This Article is a guide to that edition. In this Article, the author will attempt to provide a framework for determining whether federal-question jurisdiction is present. Grable's new edition confirms that the second branch lives. Its four-prong test, while certainly not providing a bright line,...
Budgets are moral documents." So religious voices, rightly, have reminded us in recent months. Now, Catholic and Protestant leaders have launched an initiative called "Circle of Protection" to make federal antipoverty spending untouchable in the ongoing conversation about how to save future generations of Americans from crushing debt. "As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare," argues a statement on Circle of Protection's website. "Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is poised to rehear a question about how specific patent descriptions must be. Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. could reverse a written-description requirement that the court imposed several years ago and used to invalidate a University of Rochester patent for NSAID COX-2 pain inhibitors in 2004.
The US Supreme Court will soon resolve a split in the federal circuit courts on the question of whether a district court could "look through" to the underlying claims to be arbitrated when determining whether it has "federal question" jurisdiction to hear a petition to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the issue raised in Vaden v Discovery Bank. The Court will also determine whether the related issue of whether "a completely preempted state law counterclaim" furnishes federal question jurisdiction to a district court. The decision under review is by the 4th Circuit. Vaden argues that the 4th Circuit failed to understand the background against which Congress was legislating when it enacted Section 4. She also argues that the court misunderstood Section 4's langu...
The US Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 6 in Betty E. Vaden v. Discover Bank. The Court is expected to decide an important jurisdictional question: whether a district court may "look through" to the underlying complaint in a case in order to decide whether it has "federal question" jurisdiction to hear a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Discover Bank's counsel, Carter Phillips, an attorney with Sidley Austin in Washington, DC, argued that the issue in this case -- whether Section 4 authorizes a district court to compel arbitration when it determines it would have jurisdiction over the underlying dispute -- is a question of federal law.
Buffalo School Superintendent James A. Williams is bucking federal guidelines by refusing to remove the principals of three failing schools -- a decision that could cost the district up to $42 million in grants. The federal government offers districts up to $2 million a year per school, for three years, to help turn around failing schools. To get the money, the district must replace any principal who has been in his or her school longer than two years.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
creation of record of lawful permanent residence | Price | Beppe Severgnini | edel AG | radio equipment buffalo | Chauriat | Bangente de venezuela | potasio k | traslados en linea 2009 | asterix parc
