Also known as: exceptional circumstance · extraordinary circumstances
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Unusual or rare conditions that justify a court in departing from an otherwise applicable general rule or standard.
Elena Estrada, an associate at Elite Dynamics, filed a pleading containing denials of factual contentions that lacked evidentiary support. After notice and an opportunity to respond, the court found a Rule 11(b) violation. Because no exceptional circumstances appeared, the court held Elite Dynamics jointly responsible with Estrada for the resulting sanction.
Edgewater Capital, incorporated and headquartered in Delaware, maintained substantial sales and dealerships in California. Plaintiffs sued there for events unrelated to any California conduct. Absent exceptional circumstances rendering the company at home in California, the court held that general jurisdiction did not exist.
Esme Ellington faced trial on federal charges but learned that a key eyewitness planned to leave the country permanently. She moved to depose the witness. The court granted the motion on a showing of exceptional circumstances that made preservation of the testimony necessary in the interest of justice.
Enzo Eastwood faced an ongoing state criminal prosecution and asked a federal court to enjoin it on constitutional grounds. The federal court found no bad-faith prosecution or flagrantly unconstitutional statute. Absent such extraordinary circumstances, the court abstained from interfering with the state proceeding.
Eva Espinosa sued Eclipse Manufacturing in New York for an accident that occurred in Texas. All witnesses and evidence were located in Texas. The court found exceptional circumstances making the New York forum inconvenient and dismissed the action under forum non conveniens.
The plaintiff Gilbert, a resident of Lynchburg, Virginia, operated a public warehouse in that city. He brought suit against Gulf Oil Corporation alleging that the defendant, in violation of local ordinances, carelessly handled a delivery of gasoline to the warehouse tanks and pumps, resulting in an explosion and fire. The fire destroyed the warehouse building, merchandise, fixtures, and customers' stored property, and caused injury to business profits, with total claimed damages exceeding $365,000. The defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation qualified to do business in both Virginia and New York. When the action was commenced in the Southern District of New York on the basis of diversity of citizenship, the defendant moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It asserted that Virginia was the appropriate forum because the plaintiff resided there, all events in the litigation took place there, and most witnesses resided there, with both state and federal courts available. The district court dismissed the action, applying New York law on forum non conveniens pursuant to Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of the doctrine in federal courts.
View caseElijah Edwards, a member of a religious group, sought an exemption from a generally applicable criminal law banning certain controlled substances. The court applied the law because no exceptional circumstances triggered strict scrutiny of the neutral prohibition.
Alfred Smith and Galen Black were members of the Native American Church employed at a private drug rehabilitation organization in Oregon. They ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a church ceremony. Their employer fired them for this conduct, treating it as work-related misconduct. Smith and Black applied to the Employment Division of the Oregon Department of Human Resources for unemployment compensation benefits, but the Division denied the claims on the ground that the firings constituted misconduct. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the denials, holding that they violated the respondents' free exercise rights under the First Amendment. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that respondents were entitled to payment of unemployment benefits. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for a determination whether Oregon law prohibited the sacramental use of peyote. On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the statute made no exception for sacramental use and reaffirmed its conclusion that denying benefits violated the respondents' constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time. Oregon law prohibits knowing or intentional possession of peyote, a Schedule I controlled substance, making it a Class B felony. The respondents' peyote use occurred at a Native American Church ceremony and formed the sole basis for their terminations and benefit denials.
A court imposes joint responsibility on the firm unless the attorney acted entirely outside the firm's control or knowledge in a manner that no reasonable firm could have prevented. The rule treats the violation as the firm's responsibility by default.
…to laws that expressly single out religious practices). Ante , at 884-885. The Court cites cases in which, due to various exceptional circumstances, we found strict scrutiny inapposite, to hint that the Court has repudiated that standard altogether. Ante , at 882-884. In short, it effectuates a wholesale overturning of settled law…
…and the Regulatory staff, though not requested to do so, made available various drafts and handwritten notes. Under all of the circumstances, we conclude that adjudicatory type procedures were not warranted here." App. 389-390 (footnote omitted). : The ACRS report as quoted, 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 333, 547 F. 2d, at…
…born of gestational surrogacy and other types of assisted conception. As the foreword to the model legislation notes, the extraordinary circumstances of these children's births deprive them of parentage in the traditional sense. (9B West's U. Laws Ann. (1992 Supp.) USCACA, supra, at p. 123.) Thus, the intent of the proposed legislation…
…ex rel. Hardy v. Blount , 261 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1972). They had also held that habeas corpus could not be used, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances, to test the probable cause for detention under an information. See Sullivan v. State ex rel. McCrory , 49 So. 2d 794, 797 (Fla. 1951). The only possible methods for obtaining a judicial…
…Court, in one form of words or another, has repeatedly recognized the existence of the power to decline jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. As formulated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, the rule is: “Obviously, the proposition that a court having jurisdiction must exercise it, is not universally true; else the admiralty court could…
No. A corporation is at home only in its state of incorporation or principal place of business. Substantial sales or operations alone do not qualify as exceptional circumstances that would support general jurisdiction elsewhere.
The movant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances, such as the witness's imminent unavailability, that make preservation necessary in the interest of justice. The court may also order production of designated nonprivileged materials at the deposition.
Only in extraordinary circumstances such as bad-faith prosecution, harassment, or a statute that is flagrantly unconstitutional with no valid applications. Principles of comity and federalism otherwise require abstention.
A court may decline jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances where the chosen forum imposes grave inconvenience and an adequate alternative forum exists. The analysis weighs private and public interest factors to determine whether dismissal serves the interests of justice.
No. Neutral laws of general applicability receive rational-basis review even when they incidentally burden religious exercise. Strict scrutiny applies only when the law is not neutral or generally applicable or when exceptional circumstances are present.