Judicial Discretion: A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany Skip over navigation
LexisNexis® Browse Law Reviews and Treatises
Skip over navigation
Sign in with your lexis.com® ID to access the full text of this article.
-OR-
Order the full text of this article if you do not have a lexis.com® ID.
 
Price: 
US $22.00 (+ tax)
 
 

Copyright (c) 1994 Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Journal
Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Journal 
Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review

Judicial Discretion: A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany

Winter, 1994

16 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 455

Author

Alexander Reus*

Excerpt



I. Introduction

Judicial discretion, particularly in the exercise of jurisdictional powers, is of questionable value and need. To analyze judicial discretion in civil versus common law jurisdictional systems, the doctrine of forum non conveniens serves as an excellent vehicle. From the perspective of this German-American jurist, there is no place for the doctrine of forum non conveniens in German law.

Part I of this Article briefly describes the scope and origin of forum non conveniens. In Part II, the Article gives a comprehensive and detailed overview of the rise of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the United States and analyzes particular current developments in the area, including the recent decision of Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno. 1 Part II further considers parallel developments within the United States regarding intra-U.S. venue transfers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), and their impact on forum non conveniens. Part II then concludes with an analysis of the current status of the doctrine and its applicability in the United States. Next, Part III considers forum non conveniens in the United Kingdom, including its historic and dogmatic developments, and critically analyzes the impact of the House of Lords' decision in Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd. 2 Parts IV and V point out the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in their practical application of forum non conveniens for cases involving German parties. Part V also introduces the Hague Convention on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments as a determinative factor ...
 
 
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.
Search Documents
 
eg., Environmental Insurance Coverage Under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy
 
 
 
 

Lexis® Web - The only search engine that delivers free web content specifically from legal sites validated by LexisNexis® attorney editors and includes tools for faster research and more relevant results.

 
LexisNexis Store
Research Now - Go to lexis.com
Connect the Dots - Free 1 hour webcast
Share. Network. Discover. - Go to LexisNexis Communities