Re: [dvd-discuss] Pavlovich dvd case heading to SCOTUS

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

Amazing.

I really can't imagine that the SCOTUS would effectively tell a State Supreme
Court that it was wrong to deny itself jurisdiction on a matter of state law.
I'm rather baffled as to what the Constitutional issue here is.

It would be completely bizarre for Washington to reverse CA on this. Anybody
know if there is any precedent where a Federal Court essentially ordered a
state court to find jurisdiction on a matter of state law?

--- Jeremy Erwin <jerwin@ponymail.com> wrote:
> As no one else has seen fit to post this rather important development
> 
> http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2002/12/30/scotus_dvd/index.html
> 
> The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the California courts 
> should have jurisdiction over Matt Pavlovich, and whether websites 
> meets the "minimum contact" standard required for such jurisdiction. 
> O'Conner stayed the California ruling-- I'm not really sure how court 
> watchers would construe this.
> 
> On a somewhat note, I recall a recent case in which a Connecticut paper 
> (presumably with website) profiled one of Virginia's supermax 
> hellholes. Subsequently the warden tried to sue, in Virginia, for 
> libel. As I recall, the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. I 
> wonder if that case (or libel cases with similar circumstances) will be 
> reconsidered as well...
> 
> 
> Jeremy
> 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com