告别不可放弃性:允许放弃法定标的管辖权缺陷的案例

Jessica J. Berch
{"title":"告别不可放弃性:允许放弃法定标的管辖权缺陷的案例","authors":"Jessica J. Berch","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2314633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is axiomatic that defects in federal subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, and even if the parties involved in the cases do not dispute the federal courts’ power to decide the matters; likewise, subject-matter jurisdiction is deemed so important that federal courts should determine their jurisdiction before proceeding to other issues. These axioms are sometimes referred to as subject-matter jurisdiction’s “no-waiver rule” because they highlight the critical importance of the subject-matter jurisdiction inquiry. Recently, scholars have questioned whether the strict demarcation between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional rules should be preserved, and whether it might make more sense to permit jurisdictional rules, at appropriate times, to take on certain nonjurisdictional attributes—such as the attribute of waiver. This Article engages with that scholarship with respect to the jurisdictional rules defining statutory subject-matter jurisdiction and the nonjurisdictional attribute of forfeiture or waiver and argues that efficiency, fairness, consistency, legitimacy, and transparency will all be enhanced if statutory subject-matter jurisdiction can, under certain circumstances, be waived. This Article further explains why such a change to the no-waiver rule will not adversely affect federalism values, as many courts and scholars opine. Despite the current no-waiver rule governing subject-matter jurisdiction, courts have waived, excused, or otherwise deferred the resolution of the subject-matter jurisdiction question until advanced stages of the proceedings. As courts create and expand these exceptions to the nowaiver rule and pretermit the subject-matter jurisdiction inquiry in order to tackle other (and often easier) issues, the gap between the “no waiver” rhetoric and actual application of that rule grows larger. This Article explores these exceptions and demonstrates that their ad hoc","PeriodicalId":87194,"journal":{"name":"McGeorge law review","volume":"45 1","pages":"635-693"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Waving Goodbye to Non-Waivability: The Case for Permitting Waiver of Statutory Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Defects\",\"authors\":\"Jessica J. Berch\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2314633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is axiomatic that defects in federal subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, and even if the parties involved in the cases do not dispute the federal courts’ power to decide the matters; likewise, subject-matter jurisdiction is deemed so important that federal courts should determine their jurisdiction before proceeding to other issues. These axioms are sometimes referred to as subject-matter jurisdiction’s “no-waiver rule” because they highlight the critical importance of the subject-matter jurisdiction inquiry. Recently, scholars have questioned whether the strict demarcation between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional rules should be preserved, and whether it might make more sense to permit jurisdictional rules, at appropriate times, to take on certain nonjurisdictional attributes—such as the attribute of waiver. This Article engages with that scholarship with respect to the jurisdictional rules defining statutory subject-matter jurisdiction and the nonjurisdictional attribute of forfeiture or waiver and argues that efficiency, fairness, consistency, legitimacy, and transparency will all be enhanced if statutory subject-matter jurisdiction can, under certain circumstances, be waived. This Article further explains why such a change to the no-waiver rule will not adversely affect federalism values, as many courts and scholars opine. Despite the current no-waiver rule governing subject-matter jurisdiction, courts have waived, excused, or otherwise deferred the resolution of the subject-matter jurisdiction question until advanced stages of the proceedings. As courts create and expand these exceptions to the nowaiver rule and pretermit the subject-matter jurisdiction inquiry in order to tackle other (and often easier) issues, the gap between the “no waiver” rhetoric and actual application of that rule grows larger. This Article explores these exceptions and demonstrates that their ad hoc\",\"PeriodicalId\":87194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"McGeorge law review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"635-693\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"McGeorge law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2314633\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"McGeorge law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2314633","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

不言自明的是,联邦主体管辖权的缺陷可以在任何时候提出,即使是第一次上诉,即使案件当事人不质疑联邦法院决定事项的权力;同样,主体管辖权被认为是如此重要,以至于联邦法院应在处理其他问题之前确定其管辖权。这些公理有时被称为主题管辖权的“不放弃规则”,因为它们强调了主题管辖权调查的至关重要性。最近,学者们质疑是否应该保留管辖权和非管辖权规则之间的严格界限,以及是否允许管辖权规则在适当的时候具有某些非管辖权属性(例如放弃属性)可能更有意义。本文就界定法定主体管辖权和没收或放弃的非管辖权属性的管辖权规则进行了学术研究,并认为如果在某些情况下可以放弃法定主体管辖权,则效率、公平性、一致性、合法性和透明度都将得到提高。本文进一步解释了为什么对不放弃规则的这种改变不会像许多法院和学者所认为的那样对联邦制的价值观产生不利影响。尽管目前对标的管辖权有不放弃规则,但法院已经放弃、原谅或以其他方式推迟对标的管辖权问题的解决,直到诉讼的后期阶段。随着法院创造和扩大“无论如何”规则的这些例外,并为了解决其他(通常更容易)问题而对主题管辖权进行调查,“不放弃”的修辞与该规则的实际应用之间的差距越来越大。本文将探讨这些异常,并演示它们的特殊之处
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Waving Goodbye to Non-Waivability: The Case for Permitting Waiver of Statutory Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Defects
It is axiomatic that defects in federal subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, and even if the parties involved in the cases do not dispute the federal courts’ power to decide the matters; likewise, subject-matter jurisdiction is deemed so important that federal courts should determine their jurisdiction before proceeding to other issues. These axioms are sometimes referred to as subject-matter jurisdiction’s “no-waiver rule” because they highlight the critical importance of the subject-matter jurisdiction inquiry. Recently, scholars have questioned whether the strict demarcation between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional rules should be preserved, and whether it might make more sense to permit jurisdictional rules, at appropriate times, to take on certain nonjurisdictional attributes—such as the attribute of waiver. This Article engages with that scholarship with respect to the jurisdictional rules defining statutory subject-matter jurisdiction and the nonjurisdictional attribute of forfeiture or waiver and argues that efficiency, fairness, consistency, legitimacy, and transparency will all be enhanced if statutory subject-matter jurisdiction can, under certain circumstances, be waived. This Article further explains why such a change to the no-waiver rule will not adversely affect federalism values, as many courts and scholars opine. Despite the current no-waiver rule governing subject-matter jurisdiction, courts have waived, excused, or otherwise deferred the resolution of the subject-matter jurisdiction question until advanced stages of the proceedings. As courts create and expand these exceptions to the nowaiver rule and pretermit the subject-matter jurisdiction inquiry in order to tackle other (and often easier) issues, the gap between the “no waiver” rhetoric and actual application of that rule grows larger. This Article explores these exceptions and demonstrates that their ad hoc
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