i'm confused though. how come a defendant can challenge the original court's jurisdiction in the enforcement action through a collateral attack?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - jellybean00
Pages:  2
under 28 USC 1406(b), "nothing will impair the jurisdiction of a district court involving a party who doesnm't interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue."
when are you supposed to object to venue? And so that means if a court decides a case, and it turns out that it was in the wrong venue the whole time, the parties can never object to the lack of jurisdiction even on appeal?
hey cabra - are you paying much attention to knowing all the cases? or are you just focusing on the rules? i'm really stressed out - i'm still reading glannon and haven't even gotten around to going back over the cases from subrin yet...
i'm a little confused. why would states pass long arm statutes to limit the constitutional scope of their jurisdiction instead of doing what california does and let the state court have the total scope of personal jurisdiction under the due process clause? isn't that basically limiting the amoutn of power they have?
Pages:  2