州际污染与属人管辖权的困境

Cedar Hobbs
{"title":"州际污染与属人管辖权的困境","authors":"Cedar Hobbs","doi":"10.36640/mjeal.11.1.interstate","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current Supreme Court personal jurisdiction analysis does not clearly support a finding of personal jurisdiction for out of state polluters in an interstate toxic tort. Still, some courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have attempted to find personal jurisdiction in these cases, but in doing so have employed tenuous analysis that can result in inconsistent case law. This Note argues that there is a better analytical framework which reemphasizes the role played by territorial borders in personal jurisdictional analysis. Through employing this framework, courts can find personal jurisdiction in interstate toxic torts while also preserving analytically consistent case law.","PeriodicalId":302203,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interstate Pollution and the Quandary of Personal Jurisdiction\",\"authors\":\"Cedar Hobbs\",\"doi\":\"10.36640/mjeal.11.1.interstate\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Current Supreme Court personal jurisdiction analysis does not clearly support a finding of personal jurisdiction for out of state polluters in an interstate toxic tort. Still, some courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have attempted to find personal jurisdiction in these cases, but in doing so have employed tenuous analysis that can result in inconsistent case law. This Note argues that there is a better analytical framework which reemphasizes the role played by territorial borders in personal jurisdictional analysis. Through employing this framework, courts can find personal jurisdiction in interstate toxic torts while also preserving analytically consistent case law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":302203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.11.1.interstate\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.11.1.interstate","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前最高法院的属人管辖权分析并未明确支持州外污染者在州际有毒侵权案件中属人管辖权的认定。尽管如此,包括第九巡回法院在内的一些法院试图在这些案件中找到属人管辖权,但在这样做的过程中,他们采用了脆弱的分析,可能导致判例法不一致。本说明认为,有一个更好的分析框架,重新强调领土边界在属人管辖权分析中所起的作用。通过采用这一框架,法院可以在州际有毒侵权案件中找到属人管辖权,同时也保持分析上一致的判例法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interstate Pollution and the Quandary of Personal Jurisdiction
Current Supreme Court personal jurisdiction analysis does not clearly support a finding of personal jurisdiction for out of state polluters in an interstate toxic tort. Still, some courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have attempted to find personal jurisdiction in these cases, but in doing so have employed tenuous analysis that can result in inconsistent case law. This Note argues that there is a better analytical framework which reemphasizes the role played by territorial borders in personal jurisdictional analysis. Through employing this framework, courts can find personal jurisdiction in interstate toxic torts while also preserving analytically consistent case law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信