Mandatory Injunction Jurisdiction: Mandamus. Injunctions. Federal Jurisdiction. Federal Court Refuses Removal Jurisdiction in Suit for Mandatory Injunction Having the Effect of "True" Mandamus

1961 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 167
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
In Suit

scholarly journals In the Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Prosecutions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Structural Relationship ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Court System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
In The Beginning

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Section 25 has long been thought to be one of the most important provisions of the most important jurisdictional statute enacted by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave concrete institutional shape to a federal judiciary only incompletely defined by Article III. And section 25 supplied a key piece of the structural relationship between the previously existing state court systems and the new federal court system that Congress constructed with the Act. It provided for Supreme Court appellate review of certain state court decisions denying the federal-law-based rights of certain litigants.

scholarly journals Canadian Interpretation and Construction of Maritime Conventions

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-128
Author(s):  
William Tetley
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Maritime Law ◽  
Law System ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

In this article, the author first describes the essentially civilian nature and origin of maritime law in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, a point unfortunately overlooked in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Buenos Aires Maru case [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752, but recognized in the judgement of the same Court in Chartwell Shipping Ltd v. Q.N.S. Paper, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 683. The article touches briefly on the federal jurisdiction over maritime law in Canada, the dual jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the superior courts of the provinces in maritime matters and the mixed civilian / common law system in Quebec. Consideration is then given to the Constitution Act, 1867, as interpreted by the much-criticized Labour Conventions decision of the Privy Council [1937] A.C. 326. The decision held that although the power to conclude international treaties and conventions in Canada is vested in the federal government alone, the enactment of the domestic legislation required to secure the implementation of such international agreements is not an exclusively federal matter, but may be a question of either federal or provincial competence, depending on the subject matter of the treaty or convention concerned. The author then reviews the principal rules of statutory interpretation which are provided for by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. He points out that, notwithstanding Canada’s ratification of this Convention in 1970, Canadian courts still tend to apply traditional (and often narrow) techniques of statutory interpretation when called upon to construe treaty texts, rather than keeping the goals of the agreement and intent of the parties in view, as the Vienna Convention requires. He indicates, however, a more recent judicial trend towards a more liberal methodology, as evidenced in decisions like R. v. Palacios, (1984) 45 O.R. (2d) 269 (Ont. C.A.) The article concludes with a brief overview of the major statutory interpretation rules applied by Canadian courts in construing local laws and international agreements and some aids to such interpretation. Professor Tetley, as a last tribute, applauds what he sees to be the slowly emerging "general consensus" on statutory and treaty interpretation in Canada.

State Jurisdictional Residue: What Remains to a State Court When Its Chapter III Functions are Exhausted?

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Helen Irving
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
State Power ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
State Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
High Court Of Australia ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1 provided the first opportunity for the High Court of Australia to consider the constitutional validity of a ‘declaration of inconsistent interpretation’ made under s 36 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The Court's ruling on this point attracted attention going well beyond the rest of the case. The constitutional status of the Charter's ‘declaration’ function had long been uncertain; in addition, although the case concerned a conviction under State law, the judgment of the Victorian Court of Appeal, from which Ms Momcilovic's appeal had come to the High Court, had been exercised in federal jurisdiction. This, then, raised questions about the extent to which the State Court was jurisdictionally limited, under the Kable doctrine, by its ‘identity’ as a Ch III court: whether the declaration power could be exercised by both, either, or neither, a State or federal court. Notably, French CJ found the power valid for a State court, but invalid for a federal court. In explaining his conclusion, the Chief Justice identified what this paper calls ‘State jurisdictional residue.’ In his Honour's words, ‘there is no reason in principle why the Court of Appeal, having exhausted its functions in the exercise of its federal jurisdiction … could not proceed to exercise the distinct non-judicial power conferred upon it by’ the Charter. Further questions were then raised about the extent to which a State court, albeit exercising federal jurisdiction, remains free to exercise a ‘residual’ State power relevant to the same proceedings. This paper considers such questions. It also asks what the case might be for reconsidering Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51, particularly in light of the more recent judgment in Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document