pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)

Citation: pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)
Parent Document: pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-01
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/20324 ↗

Full Text

702 chars

As a leading treatise explains, parties and courts do not use Rule 12(b)(1)
exclusively to raise a lack of subject matter jurisdiction; they also use the
motion to address “a variety of other defenses that one normally would not
think of as raising subject-matter jurisdiction questions.” Those defenses
generally involve whether a court should decline to exercise subject matter
jurisdiction that the court otherwise would have, such as abstention
doctrines and justiciability issues. “Thus, the scope of Rule 12(b)(1) is
flexible, often serving as a procedural vehicle for raising various residual
defenses” that “share the common theme of challenging the court's ability
to proceed with the action.”

Other Sections in This Document (102)

Full Text