About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

51 Minn. L. Rev. 491 (1966-1967)
Beyond Bootstrap: Foreclosing the Issue of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction before Final Judgment

handle is hein.journals/mnlr51 and id is 507 raw text is: Beyond Bootstrap: Foreclosing the Issue of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Before Final Judgment Dan B. Dobbs* I. THE PROBLEM OF BELATED DIRECT ATTACK UPON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Good judicial administration requires that all issues pre- liminary to the merits of a dispute be raised and disposed of at an early stage of litigation. It would be farcical to try a case fully on the merits and then decide demurrers, objections to venue, or motions to strike inappropriate pleadings afterwards. Since the law is a ass only part of the time, it ordinarily re- quires that all defenses and objections be raised at the beginning of the trial and not at the end or in the middle; and if pos- sible, these preliminary objections are decided first.' For example, if the defendant believes that the court has no juris- diction over his person, he must say so immediately if he ap- pears in the case at all; if he does not object immediately, he waives his objection.2 It is commonly said, however, that parties cannot consent to jurisdiction of the subject matter;3 accordingly, the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal.4 Thus, failure * Visiting Professor of Law, University of Minnesota; Professor of Law, University of North Carolina. 1. Federal practice is prescribed in Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure, Rule 12(h). The 1966 amendments, however, make it easy to postpone decision on preliminary questions. Likewise, if evidence in- troduced without objection raises a new point, under the liberal amend- ment rules, a failure to raise the point earlier may carry no adverse consequences. FED. R. Civ. P. 15(b). If a cause of action is not stated in the complaint, it may be attacked tardily. See LOUISELL & HAzARD, PLEADING & PROCEDURE 197-98 (1962); FED. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (2). 2. FED. R. Civ. P. 12; see Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 244 U.S. 25 (1917); York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15 (1890). Similarly the plaintiff may be held to have waived any objections to jurisdiction over his person because he has, by filing his complaint, submitted to the court's juris- diction. Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59 (1938). 3. See 1 BARRoN & HOLTZoFr, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 21 (Wright ed. 1960); 1 MOORE, FEDRAL PRACTICE f 0.60(4) (2d ed. 1959); Dobbs, The Decline of Jurisdiction by Consent, 40 N.C.L. REV. 49 (1961). 4. This statement is made repeatedly by both courts and writers, without qualification. The leading case is Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379 (1884), discussed in detail below. This paper, how-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most