DOCSLIB.ORG

Jurisdiction and Venue Jurisdiction for Adoption Petitions Examples of Jurisdiction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jurisdiction and Venue Jurisdiction for Adoption Petitions Examples of Jurisdiction STATE STATUTES Current Through May 2017 WHAT’S INSIDE Court Jurisdiction and Venue Jurisdiction for Adoption Petitions Examples of jurisdiction Adoption is a legal process for making a child a Venue permanent member of a family other than the child’s birth family.1 Jurisdiction refers to the type of Summaries of state laws court that hears adoption cases. Venue refers to the geographic location of the court. To find statute Jurisdiction information for a particular state, In each state, different courts are designated by go to statute with the responsibility to hear certain types https://www.childwelfare. of cases. That designation is what is meant by the gov/topics/systemwide/ term “jurisdiction.” For example, criminal cases are laws-policies/state/. tried in state criminal courts. Adoption is a civil procedure, and at the state level, certain civil courts are given authority to hear adoption cases. A person who seeks to adopt a child must file his or her petition for adoption with the appropriate civil court.2 All 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands specify in their statutes one or more types of courts that have jurisdiction over adoption cases. 1 The adopted person is not always a child. For more information, see Information Gateway’s Who May Adopt, Be Adopted, or Place a Child for Adoption? at https://www. childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/parties/. 2 In the case of adopting a child from foster care, the court having jurisdiction over the adoption petition may be the juvenile court that terminated the birth parents’ parental rights, or a different court may have jurisdiction. Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS 800.394.3366 | Email: [email protected] | https://www.childwelfare.gov Court Jurisdiction and Venue for Adoption Petitions https://www.childwelfare.gov Examples of Jurisdiction In some states, other courts may have jurisdiction over an adoption case under specific circumstances. For example, in State courts are organized in a hierarchy that includes seven states (Arkansas, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, both of the following: Nebraska, Tennessee, and Utah), the juvenile court has Courts of original jurisdiction, where cases are first jurisdiction if the child to be adopted has previously been heard placed under that court’s supervision or if that court handled the case of termination of the parents’ rights. In Nevada, Appellate courts, which review cases that have been New Mexico, and Wisconsin, if the child to be adopted is an appealed from lower courts’ decisions Indian child, a tribal court may have jurisdiction over the The names assigned to these courts vary from state to case. The trial division of the high court has jurisdiction over state. All adoption cases start with a petition filed with the contested adoptions in American Samoa. appropriate court of original jurisdiction. In some states, more than one court may have jurisdiction The type of court designated as the court of original over adoption cases. In those states, any court designated in jurisdiction for adoption cases in each state reflects the statute may hear an adoption petition. For example, in Iowa, organization of that state’s court system. Names given to either the juvenile or county court may have jurisdiction. In these courts include: New York, either the family court or surrogate’s (probate) court has jurisdiction. Either the chancery or circuit court 3 Circuit court, used in nine states has jurisdiction in Tennessee, while in Texas, a district court, District court, used in eight states and American juvenile court, or other court having jurisdiction of a suit Samoa4 affecting the parent-child relationship may hear an adoption Superior court, used in seven states, the District of petition. Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands5 Probate court, used in eight states6 Venue Family court, used in five states7 Venue refers to the geographic location of the court that Juvenile court, used in four states8 will hear the case. Most states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands maintain courts of all types located in counties or Some other names used are equity (Maryland), chancery districts throughout the state or territory.10 Petitions for (Mississippi and Tennessee), court of common pleas adoption are filed in the type of court that has the (Pennsylvania), county (Nebraska and Wisconsin), trial appropriate jurisdiction at the location (or venue) that is (Northern Mariana Islands), and the specialized family part convenient to the parties involved in the case. In many cases, of the court of first instance (Puerto Rico).9 there is a residency requirement. In many states, venue options include the county in which the person seeking to 3 Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia. adopt (petitioner) resides or is in military service, where the 4 Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, child to be adopted resides, or where the child-placing and Wyoming. 5 Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, and agency is located. Other venue options include the county Washington. 6 Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New where parental rights were terminated (Louisiana and New Hampshire, and Ohio. York) or the county in which the placing birth parent(s) lived 7 Delaware, Hawaii, New York, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. 8 Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, and Minnesota. when the placement agreement was signed, the child was 9 In addition, in some states, the court of original jurisdiction for adoption freed for adoption, or the adoption petition was filed proceedings may be a division of a court of more general jurisdiction. For example, in Michigan, the family division of the circuit court has jurisdiction (California). over adoptions. In New Mexico, jurisdiction over adoption petitions lies with the children’s court division of the district court, while in Missouri, the juvenile division of the circuit court has jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. In 10 Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and the Vermont, adoption cases are handled by the probate division of the superior Northern Mariana Islands, due to their small geographic areas, have one court court. that handles adoption petitions. For this reason, their statutes do not specify venue. This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/jurisdiction/. 2 Court Jurisdiction and Venue for Adoption Petitions https://www.childwelfare.gov Note: Adoptions in which the child and the adopting parents live in different states can be more involved, and in those cases the court supervising the placement may be different from the one listed in this publication. Most cases are subject to the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), which is an agreement among all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The ICPC provides for the movement and safe placement of children between states when the children are in the custody of a state or being placed for private/independent adoption.11 This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a state’s code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures. Suggested Citation: Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Court jurisdiction and venue for adoption petitions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. 11 For more information, visit the website of the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children at http://icpc.aphsa. org/content/AAICPC/en/home.html. This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/jurisdiction/. 3 Court Jurisdiction and Venue for Adoption Petitions https://www.childwelfare.gov Alabama Current Through May 2017 Jurisdiction Citation: Ala. Code § 26-10A-3 The probate court has original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. If any party fails to or is unable to consent, the proceeding shall be transferred to the juvenile division of the circuit court for the limited purpose of termination of parental rights. Venue Citation: Ala. Code § 26-10A-4 All petitions may be filed in the probate court in the county in which one of the following applies: • The minor or adult resides or has a legal residence. • A petitioner resides or is in the military service. • An office of any agency having guardianship is located. Alaska Current Through May 2017 Jurisdiction Citation: Alaska Stat. § 25.23.030 Proceedings for adoption shall be brought in the superior court. Venue Citation: Alaska Stat. § 25.23.030 Venue is in the county where the adopted person resides, the petitioner resides or is in military service, or the agency having custody is located. The court may transfer, stay, or dismiss the adoption proceeding if it is in the interest of substantial justice that the case be heard in another judicial district. The venue for an adoption proceeding for a child in state custody under chapter 47.10 is the superior court where the child-in-need- of-aid proceeding is pending, as provided under § 47.10.111, or the judicial district in which the petitioner resides, if the petitioner provides notice to all of the parties to the child-in-need-of-aid proceeding and no party objects. American Samoa Current Through May 2017 Jurisdiction Citation: Ann.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conflict of Laws. Jurisdiction of the Subject-Matter. Collateral Attack
    RECENT CASES Conflict of Laws-Jurisdiction of the Subject-Matter-Collateral Attack-[Fed- eral].-The plaintiff sued in an Illinois court to collect on bonds which had been guar- anteed by the defendant. In a previous bankruptcy proceeding a federal court con- firmed a reorganization plan providing for a cancellation of the defendant's guarantee of the bonds. While the state action was pending, the plaintiff petitioned the federal court to modify its decree on the ground that it had no power to release the guarantor under the Bankruptcy Act. The petition was denied and no appeal was taken. Sub- sequently the defendant pleaded the decree of the federal court as a bar in the state action. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed judgment for the plaintiff. On cer- tiorari to the Supreme Court, held, reversed. A court's adjudication of its jurisdiction over the sub~ect inatter, where the issue has been contested, is resjudicatain a subse- quent action. Stoll v. Gottlieb.x Previous decisions have established that a court's judgment as to its jurisdiction over the person, where actually contested, may be resjudicataand impregnable to col- lateral attack.2 Whether or not the same results would be reached in the case of decisions on jurisdiction of the subject-matter, which present more acute theoretical difficulties, has been doubtful until the instant decision.3 In extending the doctrine of res judicata to controversies over jurisdiction of the subject-matter, which have been contested,4 the Supreme Court has taken another step in overruling the classical dogma that jurisdictional questions are always open to collateral inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • OWRB's Brief in Support of Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction
    Case No. #11037 5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Petitioner, vs. The United States on behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, a federally recognized Indian Tribe; the United States on behalf of the Chickasaw Nation" et aI., Respondents. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PATRICK R. WYRICK, OBA #21874 NEAL LEADER, OBA #5310 Solicitor General Senior Assistant Attorney General 313 NE 21 ST Street 313 NE 21 ST Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 522-4448 (405) 522-4393 (405) 522-0669 FAX (405) 522-0669 FAX [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Background Information 2 Relevant Facts 4 Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 463 U.S. 545 (1983) 6 Ethics Comm'n v. Cullison, 1993 OK37, 850 P.2d 1069 8 43 U.S.C. § 666 6 82 O.S. § 105.6 7 Art. 7, Sec. 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution 8 Summary of the Argument 8 Argument and Authorities - 9 I. The Court should assume original jurisdiction because the adjudication is of critical importance to the State of Oklahoma and to the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens 9 Keating v. Johnson, 1996 OK 61 , 918 P.2d 51 9 Sporhase v. Nebraska., 458 U.S. 941 (1982) 10 82 O.S. §§ 1-1801.4 10 Art. X, §§ 27A & 39, of the Oklahoma Constitution 10 Okla. Admin. Code §§ 785:1-1-1 10 II. The Court's exercise of original jurisdiction will allow for an expeditious final resolution of claims and issues of critical importance to the State, the Nations, and all other claimants to the water resources at issue ' 11 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstention and Primary Jurisdiction: Two Chips Off the Same Block?
    Cornell Law Review Volume 60 Article 3 Issue 1 November 1974 Abstention and Primary Jurisdiction Two Chips Off the aS me Block-a Comparative Analysis Sidney A. Shapiro Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Sidney A. Shapiro, Abstention and Primary Jurisdiction Two Chips Off ht e Same Block-a Comparative Analysis, 60 Cornell L. Rev. 75 (1974) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol60/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTENTION AND PRIMARY JURISDIC- TION: TWO CHIPS OFF THE SAME BLOCK?-A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS* Sidney A. Shapirot I INTRODUCTION A plaintiff who properly qualifies for federal jurisdiction may not always receive a hearing in federal court. Although the right of the plaintiff to be in federal court is to be respected,1 other concerns of administering justice sometimes result in the federal courts sending the plaintiff to litigate his claims elsewhere. Two of the most frequently espoused reasons for sending plaintiffs to another decision-maker are the doctrines of abstention and pri- mary jurisdiction.2 * The views herein expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Trade Commission. t Member of the Pennsylvania Bar. Staff Attorney for the Federal Trade Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Over Crimes Albert Levitt
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 16 | Issue 4 Article 5 1926 Jurisdiction over Crimes Albert Levitt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Albert Levitt, Jurisdiction over Crimes, 16 J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 495 (May 1925 to February 1926) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. JURISDICTION OVER CRIMTlES-ll ALBERT LEvITTa III-THE COSMOPOLITAN THEORY Two theories of jurisdiction over crime dominate our law. The first is the territorial theory.- According to this theory the matter of prime importance is the determination of the place where the offense was committed. The courts of the territory within which the offender committed his offense have jurisdiction over that offense. Courts out- side of that territory had no power to try the offender or to take cog- nizance of the offense in any way. The place where the "gist" of the offense occurred fixed the locus of the crime. The gist of the offense was deemed to be that element of the offense without which the offense could not be said to exist. Sometimes the gist of the offense was looked upon as the act which was done, as in the case of homicide, where the act of shooting was the gist of the offense.
    [Show full text]
  • Baker V. Carr (1962)
    Baker v. Carr (1962) Baker v. Carr (1962) Argued: April 19–21, 1961 Re-argued: October 9, 1961 Decided: March 26, 1962 Background In the U.S. each state is responsible for determining its legislative districts. For many decades states drew districts however they wanted. By the 1950s and 1960s, questions arose about whether the states’ division of voting districts was fair. Many states had not changed their district lines in decades. During that time many people moved from rural areas to cities. As a result, a significant number of legislative districts became uneven—for example, a rural district with 500 people and an urban district with 5,000 people each would have only one representative in the state legislature. Some voters filed lawsuits to address the inequities, but federal courts deferred to state laws and would not hear these cases. Federal courts did not hear these cases because they were thought to be “political” matters. Courts were reluctant to interfere when another branch of government (the executive or legislative) made a decision on an issue that was assigned to it by the Constitution. For example, if the president negotiated a treaty with another country (a power granted to the president by the Constitution), the courts would generally not decide a case questioning the legality of the treaty. The power of state legislatures to create voting districts was one of those “political questions” that the courts traditionally had avoided. This is a case about whether federal courts could rule on the way states draw their state boundaries for the purpose of electing members of the state legislature.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases Frank Wilson Knapp Cornell Law School
    Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection Historical Cornell Law School 1893 Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases Frank Wilson Knapp Cornell Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/historical_theses Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Knapp, Frank Wilson, "Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases" (1893). Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection. Paper 215. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Historical Cornell Law School at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. J URI SD I C TI 0N I N CRI MI N ATL CASES . Soo0oo----- G R A D U A T I N G THESIS OF----- FRANK W I L S 0 N KNAPP oo0oo---- CLASS OF ' 9 3 . CO0R NFlLb U N I V E R S I T Y LAW SCHOOL JURISDICTION IN CR IM I NAb CASES. The question of criminal jurisdiction is one of growing importance from the fact that a citizen of our State can be seriously affected in his property rights, or even have his life put in jeopardy, by the act of another living, a thousand miles away, and in any one of fifty or mare sover- eignties. If a citizen of the United States is killed by an explosive compound sent by a citizen of Russia with an intent to work that result in this country, it is a question of im- portance in which country the guilty offender shall be punish- ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction-Stripping: the Mpei Rial President Meets the Imperial Court" (2009)
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2009 Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction- Stripping: The mpI erial President Meets the Imperial Court Martin J. Katz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Katz, Martin J., "Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction-Stripping: The mpeI rial President Meets the Imperial Court" (2009). Constitutional Commentary. 699. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/699 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article GUANTANAMO, BOUMEDIENE, AND JURISDICTION-STRIPPING: THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT MEETS THE IMPERIAL COURT Martin J. Katz* INTRODUCTION In Boumediene v. Bush,1 the Supreme Court struck down a major pillar of President Bush's war on terror: the indefinite de­ tention of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Court held that even non-citizen prisoners held by the United States government on foreign soil could challenge their confinement by seeking a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, and that the procedures the government had provided for such challenges were not an adequate substitute for the writ." As a habeas corpus case, Boumediene may well be revolu­ tionary.3 However, Boumediene is more than merely a habeas * Interim Dean and Associate Professor of Law. University of Denver College of Law; Yale Law School. J.D. 1991: Harvard College. A.B. 1987. Thanks to Alan Chen.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Jurisdiction in OSHA, Region 10 Version 2018.2
    Guide to Jurisdiction in OSHA, Region 10 Version 2018.2 General Principles - Federal civilian employers are covered by OSHA throughout the four-state region. State, county, municipal and other non-federal public employers (except tribal government employers) are covered by state programs in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. There is no state program in Idaho, and OSHA’s coverage of public employers in Idaho is limited to the federal sector. OSHA regulates most private employers in Idaho with exceptions noted below. Industry / Location State Coverage OSHA Coverage Air Carriers1 Washington, Oregon and Alaska: Air Washington, Oregon and Alaska: carrier operations on the ground only. Aircraft cabin crewmembers’ exposures to only hazardous chemicals (HAZCOM), bloodborne pathogens, noise, recordkeeping, and access to employee exposure and medical records. Idaho: Air carrier operations on the ground. Aircraft cabin crewmembers’ exposures to only hazardous chemicals (HAZCOM), bloodborne pathogens, noise, recordkeeping, and access to employee exposure and medical records. Commercial Diving Washington, Oregon and Alaska: Washington, Oregon, and Alaska: Employers with diving operations staged Employers with diving operations from shore, piers, docks or other fixed staged from boats or other vessels afloat locations. on navigable waters 2. Idaho: All diving operations for covered employers. 1 The term “air carrier refers to private employers engaged in air transportation of passengers and/or cargo. The term “aircraft cabin crew member” refers to employees working in the cabin during flight such as flight attendants or medical staff; however, the term does not include pilots. 2 In the state of Washington, for vessels afloat, such as boats, ships and barges moored at a pier or dock, DOSH’s jurisdiction ends at the edge of the dock or pier and OSHA’s jurisdiction begins at the foot of the gangway or other means of access to the vessel; this principle applies to all situations involving moored vessels, including construction, longshoring, and ship repair.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Supreme Court Limits Non-Domicile Jurisdiction Over Foreign Companies
    The United States Supreme Court Limits Non-Domicile Jurisdiction over Foreign Companies By Scott J. Hymani and Erin S. Kubotaii The inevitable risk of doing business in the United States is that one day your company may be sued. The question is: but where? Our system of federalism unfortunately suggests that where a company might be sued can be outcome determinative of the result of the case. Accordingly, foreign companies doing business in the United States have faced forum-shopping plaintiffs hailing them into Court in a state where they do business, but where neither the plaintiff nor the wrong have any nexus to the forum state. The United States Supreme Court recently put a stop to such forum-shopping Plaintiffs in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017) (“Bristol-Myers”), and clarified where a foreign business may by subject to suit. First, a brief primer on personal jurisdiction and our system of federalism is warranted. The 14th Amendment of the United States’ Constitution limits the extent to which State courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Personal jurisdiction is necessary in order for a State court to exercise legal authority over a party and to render a valid judgment. The defendant’s relationship to and activity in a forum State determines whether a State can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Obviously, a defendant who is domiciled in the State is subject to the State’s jurisdiction. This is called general jurisdiction. A business’s “domicile” is often regarded as its home, such as where it is incorporated or where it maintains its principal place of its business.
    [Show full text]
  • Baker V. Carr in Context: 1946-1964
    BAKER V. CARR IN CONTEXT: 1946-1964 Stephen Ansolabehere and Samuel Issacharoff1 Introduction Occasionally in all walks of life, law included, there are breakthroughs that have the quality of truth revealed. Not only do such ideas have overwhelming force, but they alter the world in which they operate. In the wake of such breakthroughs, it is difficult to imagine what existed before. Such is the American conception of constitutional democracy before and after the “Reapportionment Revolution” of the 1960s. Although legislative redistricting today is not without its riddle of problems, it is difficult to imagine so bizarre an apportionment scheme as the way legislative power was rationed out in Tennessee, the setting for Baker v. Carr. Tennessee apportioned power through, in Justice Clark’s words, “a crazy quilt without rational basis.”2 Indeed, forty years after Baker, with “one person, one vote” a fundamental principle of our democracy, it may be hard to imagine what all the constitutional fuss was about. Yet the decision in Baker, which had striking immediate impact, marked a profound transformation in American democracy. The man who presided over this transformation, Chief Justice Earl Warren, called Baker “the most important case of [his] tenure on the Court.”3 Perhaps the simplest way to understand the problem is to imagine the role of the legislator faced with the command to reapportion legislative districts after each decennial Census. Shifts in population mean that new areas of a state are likely to emerge as the dominant forces of a legislature. But what if the power to stem the tide were as simple as refusing to reapportion? It happened at the national level when Congress, realizing that the swelling tide of immigrant and industrial workers had moved power to the Northeast and the Midwest, simply refused to reapportion after the 1920 Census.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief More Than Ten Days Before Its Due Date
    No. 22O154 In the Supreme Court of the United States _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NEW HAMPSHIRE, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS, Defendant. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE STATES OF OHIO, ARKANSAS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, AND UTAH IN SUPPORT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DAVE YOST BENJAMIN M. FLOWERS* Ohio Attorney General *Counsel of Record 30 E. Broad St., 17th Ohio Solicitor General Floor MICHAEL J. HENDERSHOT Columbus, Ohio 43215 Chief Deputy Solicitor General KYSER BLAKELY Deputy Solicitor General 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-466-8980 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae State of Ohio (additional counsel listed at the end of the brief) i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii STATEMENT OF AMICI INTEREST ....................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5 I. This Court’s original jurisdiction in cases between States is mandatory. ......................... 5 II. This Court’s cases holding that original jurisdiction is discretionary should not be applied to disputes between
    [Show full text]
  • Form, Function, and Justiciability Anthony J
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2007 Form, Function, and Justiciability Anthony J. Bellia Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation Anthony J. Bellia, Form, Function, and Justiciability, 86 Tex. L. Rev. See Also 1 (2007-2008). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/828 This Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Form, Function, and Justiciability Anthony J. Bellia Jr.* In A Theory of Justiciability,' Professor Jonathan Siegel provides an insightful functional analysis of justiciability doctrines. He well demonstrates that justiciability doctrines are ill suited to serve certain purposes-for example, ensuring that litigants have adverse interests in disputes that federal courts hear. Professor Siegel proceeds to identify what he believes to be one plausible purpose of justiciability doctrines: to enable Congress to decide when individuals with "abstract" (or "undifferentiated") 2 injuries may use federal courts to require that federal law be enforced. Ultimately, he rejects this justification because (1) congressional power to create justiciability where it would not otherwise exist proves that justiciability is not a real limit on federal judicial power, and (2) Congress should not have authority to determine when constitutional provisions are judicially enforceable because Congress could thereby control enforcement of constitutional limitations on its own authority.
    [Show full text]