{"title":"属人管辖权作为强制性规则","authors":"Aaron R. Petty","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1966731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the past decade, the Supreme Court has consistently admonished the bench and bar that rules delineating the scope of federal jurisdiction must not be confused with emphatic, but non-jurisdictional, bars to judicial review. Whether a particular rule falls on one side of the jurisdictional divide or the other has presented a difficult question. In a recent article, Scott Dodson proposes that there are a class of rules - \"mandatory rules\" - that while not jurisdictional in the strict sense now employed by the Supreme Court, nonetheless possess some jurisdictional characteristics. In this Essay, I suggest that personal jurisdiction is one such mandatory rule. That is, I suggest that under the logic now employed by the Supreme Court, personal jurisdiction is not \"jurisdiction\" at all. Limiting the jurisdictional label to subject-matter jurisdiction will facilitate terminological and conceptual clarity in what has become a confused field.","PeriodicalId":87424,"journal":{"name":"The University of Memphis law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Personal Jurisdiction as a Mandatory Rule\",\"authors\":\"Aaron R. Petty\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1966731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For the past decade, the Supreme Court has consistently admonished the bench and bar that rules delineating the scope of federal jurisdiction must not be confused with emphatic, but non-jurisdictional, bars to judicial review. Whether a particular rule falls on one side of the jurisdictional divide or the other has presented a difficult question. In a recent article, Scott Dodson proposes that there are a class of rules - \\\"mandatory rules\\\" - that while not jurisdictional in the strict sense now employed by the Supreme Court, nonetheless possess some jurisdictional characteristics. In this Essay, I suggest that personal jurisdiction is one such mandatory rule. That is, I suggest that under the logic now employed by the Supreme Court, personal jurisdiction is not \\\"jurisdiction\\\" at all. Limiting the jurisdictional label to subject-matter jurisdiction will facilitate terminological and conceptual clarity in what has become a confused field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87424,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The University of Memphis law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The University of Memphis law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1966731\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Memphis law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1966731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
For the past decade, the Supreme Court has consistently admonished the bench and bar that rules delineating the scope of federal jurisdiction must not be confused with emphatic, but non-jurisdictional, bars to judicial review. Whether a particular rule falls on one side of the jurisdictional divide or the other has presented a difficult question. In a recent article, Scott Dodson proposes that there are a class of rules - "mandatory rules" - that while not jurisdictional in the strict sense now employed by the Supreme Court, nonetheless possess some jurisdictional characteristics. In this Essay, I suggest that personal jurisdiction is one such mandatory rule. That is, I suggest that under the logic now employed by the Supreme Court, personal jurisdiction is not "jurisdiction" at all. Limiting the jurisdictional label to subject-matter jurisdiction will facilitate terminological and conceptual clarity in what has become a confused field.