毫无疑问的完全优先权:巡回法院20年后的有益国家银行诉安德森案

Pace law review Pub Date : 2023-10-08 DOI:10.58948/2331-3528.2076

Anthony Salzetta

{"title":"毫无疑问的完全优先权:巡回法院20年后的有益国家银行诉安德森案","authors":"Anthony Salzetta","doi":"10.58948/2331-3528.2076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003), established the modern complete preemption doctrine—a method of finding removal jurisdiction by way of federal defense. The decision was met immediately with a great degree of confusion and critique by scholars concerned with the doctrine’s theoretical foundation (or lack thereof) and the potential disarray in its prospective execution by lower courts.","PeriodicalId":82250,"journal":{"name":"Pace law review","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unpuzzling Complete Preemption: Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson After Two Decades in the Circuit Courts\",\"authors\":\"Anthony Salzetta\",\"doi\":\"10.58948/2331-3528.2076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003), established the modern complete preemption doctrine—a method of finding removal jurisdiction by way of federal defense. The decision was met immediately with a great degree of confusion and critique by scholars concerned with the doctrine’s theoretical foundation (or lack thereof) and the potential disarray in its prospective execution by lower courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pace law review\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pace law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58948/2331-3528.2076\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pace law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58948/2331-3528.2076","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

惠益国家银行诉安德森案，539 U.S. 1(2003)，确立了现代完全优先原则——一种通过联邦辩护方式确定移转管辖权的方法。这一决定立即引起了学者们对该原则的理论基础(或缺乏理论基础)的极大困惑和批评，以及下级法院在执行该原则时可能出现的混乱。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Unpuzzling Complete Preemption: Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson After Two Decades in the Circuit Courts

Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003), established the modern complete preemption doctrine—a method of finding removal jurisdiction by way of federal defense. The decision was met immediately with a great degree of confusion and critique by scholars concerned with the doctrine’s theoretical foundation (or lack thereof) and the potential disarray in its prospective execution by lower courts.

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

Pace law review

自引率

0.00%

发文量