American Somoa have UNITED STATES courts.
I've spent about an hour reading these points/summaries; I like them. The cited courts barely write their opinions (more like decisions) in Legalese!!! This is not meant as a slam against them; it's good for us that they do and with comity I think AmSom court decisions would be a help to us.
Perhaps cites from other US Territories would also help us?
This would include Puerto Rico, Marianas Islands, Guam and I think there are other territories too.
http://www.AsBar.org/ for the American Somoan digest.
I dont think it's complete and what I've read is undated; so that needs to be verifed that they are post-Erie.
Here are some excerpted points that I thought especially interested to the members of the Forum.
Enjoy.
P. S. the bolding is mine.
Affidavit by party moving for summary judgment, consisting of conclusory characterization of the moving party's own unidentified records, did not constitute evidence of the fact asserted therein; for the purpose of the motion for summary judgment, this question of fact must be resolved in favor of opposing party. Bank of Hawaii v. Pene, 8 A.S.R.2d 30.
Evidence of amount of debt, presented in support of motion for default judgment or similar summary proceeding, should consist not of conclusory affidavit by attorney, but of bank ledgers and other direct evidence from which court can conclude for itself whether the amount has been correctly calculated. Bank of Hawaii v. Ieremia, 8 A.S.R.2d 177.
A contracting party who materially and fraudulently alters a writing which is either sufficient or necessary evidence of the contract thereby loses any rights under that contract, even if he has conferred a benefit on the other party. Hardy v. Anderson, 9 A.S.R.2d 79.
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings and supporting papers show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In ruling on such a motion, the court must view all pleadings and supporting papers in the light most favorable to the opposing party, treat the opposing party's evidence as true, and draw from such evidence the inferences most favorable to him. That is, the facts must be beyond dispute, and the non-moving party's factual assertions, supported by evidence such as affidavits, are presumed to be true. American Samoa Government v. Estate of Fuimaono Tuinanau, 28 A.S.R.2d
In Admiralty cites:
High Court of American Samoa is not a "district Court of the United States" within meaning of provision of the Ship Mortgage Act granting exclusive jurisdiction to preferred ship mortgages.
46 U.S.C. § 951. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., v. The Conquest, 3 A.S.R.2d 25.
The High Court of American Samoa is not a court "of the states" within the meaning of the federal statute denying admiralty jurisdiction to state courts.
28 U.S.C. § 1333. Rainwater v. The Sea Encounter, 3 A.S.R.2d 87.
Unification of common law and admiralty procedure was a factor court should consider in determining whether to apply prior rule that maritime liens could only be foreclosed in admiralty and ship mortgages could only be foreclosed in courts of common law or equity. Security Pacific National Bank v. M/V Conquest, 4 A.S.R.2d 59.
Although Ship Mortgage Act was inapplicable in High Court of American Samoa, its provisions could be applied by analogy by court in applying general law of admiralty.
46 U.S.C. §§ 911 et seq. Security Pacific National Bank v. M/V Conquest, 4 A.S.R.2d 59.
High Court, neither an article III district court nor a non-article III district court empowered under the territorial exception," has no jurisdiction to foreclose mortgage under federal ship mortgage act, enforcement of which is permissible only by "district courts of the United States."
46 U.S.C. §§ 911-84. Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye v. HGN Corp., 6 A.S.R.2d 64.
Courts sitting in admiralty must show special care for rights of seamen. Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye v. HGN Corp., 6 A.S.R.2d 64.
- This next cite is just plain funny to me; note the bolded words:
Laws prescribing detailed procedures for presenting claims to an agency, designed to give the agency a fair chance to review and respond to the claim
before being haled into court, may be waived by the agency. Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.
- now that's ``common english!!'' LOL
ok, that's enough; the url is above, maybe someone can find other relevant cites.
ttyl.
Court Comity cases
