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

35 DePaul L. Rev. 23 (1985-1986)
The Facts of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

handle is hein.journals/deplr35 and id is 33 raw text is: THE FACTS OF FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION William Marshall* It is well-settled regarding contentions of law that a party cannot waive, consent to, or agree to overcome a lack of federal subject matter jurisdic- tion. Either party or the court may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, including on appeal.' However, the relationship of the foregoing rule to disputed facts is unclear. Are factual as well as legal issues concerning jurisdiction open to determination or redetermination at any time prior to final judgment? The Supreme Court has never explicitly focused on the jurisdictional facts problem, and the cases that do address the issue are inconsistent.' Two relatively recent Supreme Court cases suggest that normal rules of adjudi- cation are suspended when factual disputes concern the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.3 In these cases, the Court questioned the use of traditional fact-finding tools, including party admissions, to establish subject matter jurisdiction.4 Other Supreme Court cases, however, suggest that no special rules apply to the adjudication of jurisdictional facts.' This issue is significant. Its answer ultimately depends on an understand- ing of the concepts of jurisdiction and of fact as developed in an adver- sary system. From a policy standpoint, the issue is equally weighty. On the one hand is the premise that a federal court cannot exceed its jurisdictional limitations;' on the other are the rules and principles of adjudication which limit, and may foreclose, consideration of factual issues at points long before final judgment.7 * William P. Marshall, B.A., University of Pennsylvania; J.D., University of Chicago. Mr. Marshall is an Associate Professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Mr. Marshall dedicates his article as follows: This article is gratefully dedicated to my colleagues and former students at DePaul College of Law, and especially to Professor John Randolph Block, whose intellectual vigor and spirit in the face of overwhelming odds is a remarkable inspiration to us all. I. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Ry. v. Swan, III U.S. 379, 383 (1884) (general rule). 2. See infra notes 29-96 and accompanying text. 3. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea, 456 U.S. 694 (1982); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S., 365 (1978). See infra notes 29-62 and accompanying text. 4. See infra notes 29-62 and accompanying text. 5. See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 77 (1978) (jurisdictional facts reviewed under clearly erroneous standard applicable to review of facts generally); Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 322, 327 (1874) (parties may admit the existence of facts which show jurisdiction, and the courts may act judicially upon an admission). See also infra notes 92-93 and accompanying text. 6. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Ry. v. Swan, Ill U.S. 379, 383 (1884). 7. See supra notes 112-136 and accompanying text.

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