管辖权及是非曲直

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Washington Law Review Pub Date : 2005-08-19 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.680565
H. Wasserman
{"title":"管辖权及是非曲直","authors":"H. Wasserman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.680565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Federal courts frequently make the mistake of treating factual elements of federal causes of action as going to the jurisdiction of the federal court; courts hold that the failure to prove some element requires dismissal of the civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than for failure to state a claim. This arises most frequently as to elements in three federal causes of action: the quantum-of-employees element in employment discrimination claims, the \"affecting commerce\" element under the Sherman Act, and the state action requirement in constitutional actions. Characterizing a factual issue as going to jurisdiction (the power or authority of a court to hear and resolve the dispute between the parties) or substantive merits of the cause of action (going to who should win the case and why) affects the time and manner in which that issue is adjudicated and resolved within the litigation process. It also implicates the basic positivist imperative of treating distinct legal conceptions in a distinct manner. The solution is a plain-language, positive-law approach to the separation of jurisdiction and merits. A court determines its subject matter jurisdiction by examining the language of the jurisdiction-granting statute, the statute enacted pursuant to Congress' structural power and empowering the court to hear and resolve civil actions. All other facts that may come into play in the case are relevant solely to the underlying substantive cause of action and to whether the plaintiff has established a violation of rights entitling her to relief. These facts, if disputed, await resolution at full trial on the merits.","PeriodicalId":46514,"journal":{"name":"Washington Law Review","volume":"80 1","pages":"643"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jurisdiction and Merits\",\"authors\":\"H. Wasserman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.680565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Federal courts frequently make the mistake of treating factual elements of federal causes of action as going to the jurisdiction of the federal court; courts hold that the failure to prove some element requires dismissal of the civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than for failure to state a claim. This arises most frequently as to elements in three federal causes of action: the quantum-of-employees element in employment discrimination claims, the \\\"affecting commerce\\\" element under the Sherman Act, and the state action requirement in constitutional actions. Characterizing a factual issue as going to jurisdiction (the power or authority of a court to hear and resolve the dispute between the parties) or substantive merits of the cause of action (going to who should win the case and why) affects the time and manner in which that issue is adjudicated and resolved within the litigation process. It also implicates the basic positivist imperative of treating distinct legal conceptions in a distinct manner. The solution is a plain-language, positive-law approach to the separation of jurisdiction and merits. A court determines its subject matter jurisdiction by examining the language of the jurisdiction-granting statute, the statute enacted pursuant to Congress' structural power and empowering the court to hear and resolve civil actions. All other facts that may come into play in the case are relevant solely to the underlying substantive cause of action and to whether the plaintiff has established a violation of rights entitling her to relief. These facts, if disputed, await resolution at full trial on the merits.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Washington Law Review\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"643\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Washington Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.680565\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.680565","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

联邦法院经常错误地将联邦诉因的事实要素视为属于联邦法院的管辖权;法院认为,不能证明某些要件的,可以因缺乏标的管辖权而驳回民事诉讼,而不是因未提出索赔而驳回民事诉讼。这种情况最常出现在三个联邦诉因中的要素:就业歧视索赔中的雇员数量要素,《谢尔曼法》下的“影响商业”要素,以及宪法诉讼中的州行动要求。将事实问题定性为管辖权(法院审理和解决当事人之间争议的权力或权威)或诉因的实质是非(谁应该赢得案件以及为什么)会影响该问题在诉讼过程中裁决和解决的时间和方式。它还暗示了以不同方式对待不同法律概念的基本实证主义必要性。解决的办法是用通俗易懂的语言、实在法的方法来区分管辖权和是非对错。法院通过审查授予管辖权的法规的语言来确定其主体管辖权,该法规是根据国会的结构性权力制定的,并授权法院审理和解决民事诉讼。在案件中可能起作用的所有其他事实仅与潜在的实质性诉因有关,并与原告是否认定侵犯了她有权获得救济的权利有关。这些事实如有争议,待根据是非曲直进行充分审判后解决。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Jurisdiction and Merits
Federal courts frequently make the mistake of treating factual elements of federal causes of action as going to the jurisdiction of the federal court; courts hold that the failure to prove some element requires dismissal of the civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than for failure to state a claim. This arises most frequently as to elements in three federal causes of action: the quantum-of-employees element in employment discrimination claims, the "affecting commerce" element under the Sherman Act, and the state action requirement in constitutional actions. Characterizing a factual issue as going to jurisdiction (the power or authority of a court to hear and resolve the dispute between the parties) or substantive merits of the cause of action (going to who should win the case and why) affects the time and manner in which that issue is adjudicated and resolved within the litigation process. It also implicates the basic positivist imperative of treating distinct legal conceptions in a distinct manner. The solution is a plain-language, positive-law approach to the separation of jurisdiction and merits. A court determines its subject matter jurisdiction by examining the language of the jurisdiction-granting statute, the statute enacted pursuant to Congress' structural power and empowering the court to hear and resolve civil actions. All other facts that may come into play in the case are relevant solely to the underlying substantive cause of action and to whether the plaintiff has established a violation of rights entitling her to relief. These facts, if disputed, await resolution at full trial on the merits.
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Washington Law Review is a student-run and student-edited scholarly legal journal at the University of Washington School of Law. Inaugurated in 1919, it is the first legal journal published in the Pacific Northwest. Today, the Law Review publishes Articles and Comments of national and regional interest four times per year.
期刊最新文献
Permissive Certificates: Collectors of Art as Collectors of Permissions Contract Interpretation with Corpus Linguistics Stop and Frisk in a Concealed Carry World Public or Private Venture Capital Snake Oil Speech
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1