Amazing ! Wagstaffe is a civ pro savant !!!!! He was my law school civ pro professor. Back here after 4 years of practice because I’m drafting a remand. I use his lexis practice guide all the time
Article 6 of the United states supremecy clause binds state courts to rulings of federal courts, the state courts have two jurisdictions in which they can proceed by, a proceeding if the court is controlled by a juridiction. Any court judge whom is under oath to uphold federal constitutions and state laws have an option to choose which juridiction to proceed with when conducting a proceeding when a defendant invokes or enacts his constitutional rights he strips or curtails state juridiction, once this happens the judge has right to proceed according to federal law or abandon the case and not proceed at all. No court has absolute power to be an insuboardinate to the federal law.
In some cases the plaintiff can either file in federal or state court. If the plaintiff files in state court, the Defendant can "remove" the case to federal court, generally for strategic reasons.
@jocelynbey5944 What would they get from that? If the case can be heard in federal or state court than it wouldn't matter if it's moved or not. Federal court would be worse for the defendant because they have higher settlement ranges. Better for a defendant to want to keep it in state jurisdiction.
In many ways he is excellent, but in others he is hard to follow. It would help if he gave more "simple" examples ... also no 1983 civil rights mention ... I'm almost sure this is federal question jurisdiction.
1983 is a Federal Law so Federal Courts do have Jurisdiction. A 1983 claim could be filed in both State or Federal courts. But the Defendent could have the case removed to Federal Court.
I got a a parking ticket at a VA Hospital one time. Because the VA is a Federal enclave, the Federal courts had jurisdiction. I could have fought that ticket and appealled to the US Supreme Court for a parking ticket. I just paid the ticket instead.
Now my question is this. If I had a New Mexico Driver's License and got a ticket in Texas, could I have the case removed to Federal Court under Diversity Jurisdiction? And could I as New Mexican, sue under Section 1983 the Texas Cop and Judge in Federal Court? Under Diversity Jurisdiction?
If you have no domicile you have no citizenship; all artificial entities that are not true corporations are treated as partnerships; is anything in this not about business?
![Evolution of the District Courts [2018 National Lawyers Convention]](/img/1.gif)
He is basically telling the Judges how to dismiss cases. He is an attorney here in California (SF)
Most excellent Law School Student Life Hack Ever! I have the most trouble on Supplemental Jurisdiction.
Amazing ! Wagstaffe is a civ pro savant !!!!! He was my law school civ pro professor. Back here after 4 years of practice because I’m drafting a remand. I use his lexis practice guide all the time
Article 6 of the United states supremecy clause binds state courts to rulings of federal courts, the state courts have two jurisdictions in which they can proceed by, a proceeding if the court is controlled by a juridiction. Any court judge whom is under oath to uphold federal constitutions and state laws have an option to choose which juridiction to proceed with when conducting a proceeding when a defendant invokes or enacts his constitutional rights he strips or curtails state juridiction, once this happens the judge has right to proceed according to federal law or abandon the case and not proceed at all. No court has absolute power to be an insuboardinate to the federal law.
I enjoy the confused look on some of the judges faces and also the dissdain.
Federal juridiction is not limited but it limits state juridiction from broadly discretioning over ones legal rights.
If you're watching this, check the information. Most of it is correct, but some of the laws have changed.
Very good seminar. Any updated version?
This is pretty good, however the current jurisdictional amount in diversity cases is over $75,000 at this moment. Almost everything else is accurate.
He’s so good. I don’t understand why the judges look so bored lol
Very helpful! I just could not understand completely the back door (Removal Jurisdiction). Can anyone help me? Thanks
Lol
In some cases the plaintiff can either file in federal or state court. If the plaintiff files in state court, the Defendant can "remove" the case to federal court, generally for strategic reasons.
@jocelynbey5944 What would they get from that? If the case can be heard in federal or state court than it wouldn't matter if it's moved or not. Federal court would be worse for the defendant because they have higher settlement ranges. Better for a defendant to want to keep it in state jurisdiction.
The amount in controversy is supposed to exceed $75000? Diversity jurisdiction?
In many ways he is excellent, but in others he is hard to follow. It would help if he gave more "simple" examples ... also no 1983 civil rights mention ... I'm almost sure this is federal question jurisdiction.
1983 is a Federal Law so Federal Courts do have Jurisdiction. A 1983 claim could be filed in both State or Federal courts. But the Defendent could have the case removed to Federal Court.
I got a a parking ticket at a VA Hospital one time. Because the VA is a Federal enclave, the Federal courts had jurisdiction. I could have fought that ticket and appealled to the US Supreme Court for a parking ticket. I just paid the ticket instead.
Now my question is this. If I had a New Mexico Driver's License and got a ticket in Texas, could I have the case removed to Federal Court under Diversity Jurisdiction?
And could I as New Mexican, sue under Section 1983 the Texas Cop and Judge in Federal Court? Under Diversity Jurisdiction?
The main point is this, Federal Court has LIMITED jurisdiction. Its hard to get in that place!
Even the speaker isn't amused -_-
If you have no domicile you have no citizenship; all artificial entities that are not true corporations are treated as partnerships; is anything in this not about business?
He forgot about Sole Proprietorships. SPs are not Corporations or Partnerships.
The audio on this video is horrendous
State law does not preempt federal law this guy has lost his marbles