Cases

Front 1

Capron

Back 1

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Capron sued Van Noorden in Federal Circuit Court, lost, and then won on appeal arguing that the court did not have SMJ. Federal courts are courts of limited SMJ.

Front 2

Tickle

Back 2

Personal Jurisdiction

P was tricked into entering jurisdiction to be served process. The court refused to exercise PJ. Service of process by deceit, inducement, or enticement to establish PJ is illegitimate.

Front 3

Rose

Back 3

Venue

Rose could not destroy diversity by adding the Reds to the claim b/c they were not a party to the controversy. When determining whether there is diversity of citizenship, the court should ignore nominal parties.

Front 4

Case

Back 4

Pleading

Case was doing contract work for three insurance companies. He decided to run for office at which point the companies terminated their relationship with Case IAW the signed contract. “The contract gave the appellees the right to cancellation with or without cause.” The District Court dismissed Case’s suit because “the claim did not set forth facts upon which the court could grant relief.” Case’s complaint charged that appellees did nothing more than to exercise the right of termination given them by the terms of the contract. Since this is true, the court affirmed the lower courts ruling on the motion to dismiss. Had Case brought up different charges originally or through amendment, he may have had a claim; however, it is not the job of the court to determine these other claims. Party must spell out correct cause of action.

Front 5

Temple & Pimentel

Back 5

Joinder

Temple: Syntheses attempted to add a doctor and hospital as indispensible parties under Rule 19(b). Court ruled it was not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named. Radically limits who is considered indispensible.

Front 6

DiMichel

Back 6

Discovery

DiMichel wanted to view surveillance tapes before a trial. Ct ruled that in this case the surveillance tapes were material prepared in anticipation of trial and should be generally made available. (Hickman Level II - P can get it)

Front 7

Alderman

Back 7

Adjudication without trial

56 - Summary Judgment

Alderman sued B&O for willful or wanton conduct. B&O moved for and won a summary judgment under Rule 56.

Front 8

Alexander

Back 8

Trial

Burden of production

Burden of persuasion (more likely than not; clear and convincing evidence; beyond a reasonable doubt)

A truck accident led to a suit of negligence and counter suit of cont. negligence. D’s counsel failed to identify an error when the judge read instructions to the jury. The appeals court refused to overturn.

Front 9

Diniero

Back 9

Trial (Form of verdict [rule 49]: general verdict; general verdict with interrogatories; special verdict)

Difference from rule 33 interrogatories: rule 33 directed against other party - rule 49 against jury

Diniero injured in complex case where judge gave jury questions IAW 49(b). Judge w/ drew those questions when it was clear they were too complicated. Judge can withdraw interrogatives as long as it doesn’t affect the outcome of the trial.

Front 10

Texas Employers

Back 10

Trial (impeaching jury verdict - 50(a): directed verdict; 50(b): JNOV; 59: motion for a new trial; 60: motion for relief from judgment)

Price brought suit against Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n after he was injured. A person on the jury convinced the jurors to ignore expert testimony based on his own experiences. Appeals court reversed and remanded.

Front 11

Lavender

Back 11

Trial

Haney killed on RR track. The jury determined it was something protruding from the train but the RR folks claimed it was a murder. The appeals court overturned the jury finding and the US Sct overturned them. Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear.

Front 12

Hicks

Back 12

Appealability/Reviewability/Standard of Review

District court overturned as a matter of law a trial court’s finding that a doctor was not negligent.

Front 13

Des Moines

Back 13

Former Adjudication: Res Judicata/ Collateral Estoppel/ Full Faith & Credit

Prior SCOTUS decision was voidable but not void

Subject matter jurisdiction raised on collateral attack

Plaintiff tried to bring up SMJ on collateral attack and the US Sct overturned it on res judicata. Here (unlike Capron) finality trumps federalism.

Front 14

Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion)

Back 14

1. Same or different parties of the

2. same issue of fact or law

3. that was actually litigated and necessarily determine in Action 1 and

4. if there was a judgment that was final, valid and on the merits in Action 1

Front 15

Law of the case

Back 15

Prevents relitigation of the same issues in later phases of same lawsuit

Front 16

Stare decisis

Back 16

Precedent has weight (to promote settled expectations and prevent redetermination of a question of law)

Front 17

Res judicata (Claim preclusion)

Back 17

MERGER AND BAR: Precludes relitigation by:

1) Same parties (mutuality) of the

2) Same claim

3) Of all issues that were actually raised or which could have been raised

4) If there was a judgment that was final, valid, and on the merits in Action 1

Front 18

12(b)(6)

Back 18

Is the case pleading worthy?

Standard on Demurrer:

Viewed in the light most favorable to nonmoving party (Case):

1) Has nonmoving party stated a claim

2) Upon which relief can be granted?

Even if it's true, so what?

Front 19

12(c)

Back 19

Is the case discovery worthy?

Front 20

56

Back 20

Is the case trialworthy?

Front 21

50(a)

Back 21

Directed verdict: is the case jury worthy?

Front 22

50(b)

Back 22

JNOV [judgment notwithstanding the verdict]: was the case jury worthy?

Front 23

59

Back 23

Motion for a new trial: was the case trialworthy?

Front 24

60

Back 24

Motion for relief from judgment: was the case judgment-worthy?

Front 25

16

Back 25

Pretrial Conference (jury control device before trial)

Front 26

50

Back 26

Directed verdict

50(a) Judgment as a matter of law: If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may (resolve issue against the party...)

Front 27

51

Back 27

Jury instructions

Front 28

49

Back 28

Form of verdict (special verdict, general verdict, general verdict with interrogatories)

Front 29

59

Back 29

Motion for a new trial

Front 30

60

Back 30

Motion for relief from judgment

Front 31

52

Back 31

Clearly erroneous (total absence of probative fact - no jury could have found what this jury found) (Lavender v. Kern: there was not a complete absence of probative facts)

Front 32

Appellate Review

Back 32

De novo (when heard de novo, an appellate court considers a case without reference to the legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous court to hear the case - trial record can be referenced to determine the facts, but legal conclusions discounted)

Abuse of discretion

Front 33

Supreme Court grants cert when (S Ct Rule 10)

Back 33

1) split in federal circuits or state supreme courts or a circuit splits with a state cupreme court

2) A court of appeals has so far departed from accepted & usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure from lower court

3) Lower court decided important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by SCOTUS

Front 34

Res gestae (Lavender v. Kurn)

Back 34

Things done - body being dragged in body bag and witness overhears "this damn body is so heavy" - language overheard admissible because part of the 'overall' whole of the situation

Front 35

Hicks

Back 35

District court overturned as a matter of law a trial court's finding that a Dr was not negligent.

52(a)(6): Clearly erroneous: Review of Factual determinations (Judge-found facts)

Front 36

Standards of appeal

Back 36

1) De novo (sm j & controlling questions of law)

2) Deferential: abuse of discretion (19(b))

3) Clearly Erroneous: Review of factual determinations 52(a)(6)

4) Total absence of probative facts

Front 37

Rule 26

Back 37

Work product immunity (discovery - DiMichel)

Front 38

Hickman Level 1

Back 38

Absolutely protected: thoughts, mental impressions, and theories of attornies

26(3)(b)

Front 39

Hickman Level II

Back 39

Qualified immunity for

(a) material prepared in anticipation of litigation

(b) can be overcome in case of "substantial need" and "undue hardship"

Front 40

Discovery privileges

Back 40

Atty-client; priest-penitent; exec privilege, privilege against self-incrimination

Philosophy: no surprises/open/cards up

Scope: not privileged, relevant, reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidenceTra

Front 41

Transsubstantivity

Back 41

One form of action known as the civil action

Front 42

30

Back 42

Oral Depositions

Front 43

31

Back 43

Depositions on Written Qs (rare because opposing counsel reads the questions - who wants that?)

Front 44

32

Back 44

Use

Front 45

33

Back 45

Interrogatories to parties (different from 49 - interrogatories to jury as part of general verdict with interrogatories)

Front 46

34

Back 46

Production of documents

Front 47

35

Back 47

Physical and mental exams (with court order)

Front 48

36

Back 48

Request for admissions

Front 49

37

Back 49

Sanctions (vs 26(c) protective order)

Front 50

56

Back 50

Summary Judgment (demurrer + - Alderman)

(1) Viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party;

(2) has the nmp substantiated a claim

(3) with respect to which there is no genuine triable issue

(4) of material fact in dispute

Partial summary judgment possible

Front 51

1

Back 51

Scope & purpose:

All civil actions & proceedings in US district courts...should be construed and administered to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action & proceeding

Front 52

2

Back 52

There is one form of action - the civil action

Front 53

3

Back 53

A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court

Front 54

4

Back 54

Summons

Front 55

5

Back 55

Serving and filing pleadings and other papers

Front 56

6

Back 56

Computing and extending Time; Time for motion papers

Front 57

7

Back 57

Pleadings allowed, form of motions and other papers

Front 58

8

Back 58

General rules of pleading

Front 59

9

Back 59

Pleading special matters

Front 60

10

Back 60

Form of pleading

Front 61

11

Back 61

Signing pleadings, motions, & other papers; representations to the court; sanctions

Front 62

12

Back 62

Defense & Objections

Front 63

13

Back 63

Counterclaim & crossclaim

Front 64

14

Back 64

Third-Party Practice

Front 65

15

Back 65

Amended & Supplemental Pleadings

Front 66

16

Back 66

Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

Front 67

Adjudication Models

Back 67

1: Traditional Adjudication (dispute resolution)

2: Public Law Litigation: Norm Enunciation

3: Transnational Public Law Litigation: Creation of a transnational bargaining chip

Front 68

4 Joinder Issues

Back 68

Temple: Who is required?

Pimentel: Who is "indispensable"?

Haitian Centers: Who is precluded from suing again?

Dart Cherokee Basin: On what showing is CAFA jurisdiction available?

Front 69

28 US sec 1446(a)

Back 69

A defendant...desiring to remove any civil action [to federal court] shall file [in a federal court] a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the FRCP and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal..."

Front 70

CAFTA

Back 70

Requires that three elements be established for a class action case to fall under federal jurisdiction: at least one plaintiff and one defendant must be citizens of different states, the class must consist of at least 100 members, and the amount in controversy must exceed $5 million.

Front 71

Summary of Jury Control Devices

Back 71

· Before trial: Pretrial Conference (R. 16); Summary Judgment (R. 56); Voir Dire

· During trial: Rules of evidence; burends of production & persuasion; ruling on objections; directed verdict (R. 50); jury instruction (R. 51); form of verdict (R. 49); answering jury questions during deliberation; Allen charge; withdrawing jury questions; jury poll; judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV; R. 50(b))

· After trial: impeachment of jury; motion for new trial (R. 59); motion to alter and amend judgment; motion for relief from judgment (R. 60); Appellate review of fact (clearly erroneous) (R. 52) or total absence of proabtive fact; appellate review of law (de nove, abuse of discretion)

· FRCP 50(b) does not violate the 7th Am. because (1) it is considered a reserved directed verdict and (2) JNOV was part of the common law prior to the signing of the Constitution and is therefore allowed.

Front 72

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Back 72

· “federal courts are courts of limited SMJ”

o Diversity jurisdiction §1332(a)(1): “District courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens of different states.”

Front 73

Complete Diversity (SMJ)

Back 73

Complete diversity – all Ps must be diverse from all Ds at the time the case is filed

· Human citizenship based on domicile (physical presence, intent to make permanent home)

· Corporation citizenship §1332(c)(1) based on state where incorporated AND state with principal place of business (i.e. HQ/nerve center)

· Class action – citizenship based on named P’s

Front 74

Amount in Controversy (SMJ)

Back 74

> $75k

Front 75

8(a)

Back 75

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim, showing entitlement to relief; AND

(3) demand for relief (what you want)

Front 76

§1441

Back 76

Removal

o allows defendants (only) to have a case filed in state court, removed to federal court

§ May only remove cases that could have originally been brought in federal court (diversity/federal question)

§ May only be removed to federal district court, which embraces the state court in which the case was originally filed

§ All defendants must agree to removal

§ Waiver: a D who files a permissive counterclaim in state court probably waives the right to remove but filing a compulsory counterclaim in state court, probably does not waive the right to removal

Front 77

§1404

Back 77

Change of venue – can only transfer to a district where case could have been filed (that is a venue which has PJ over D)

Front 78

12(b)

Back 78

(1) lack of SMJ;

(2) lack of PJ;

(3) improper venue;

(4) insufficiency of process;

(5) insufficient service of process;

(6) failure to state a claim;

(7) failure to join indispensible party

Front 79

12(b)(6)

Back 79

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, has the plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief can be granted?

Front 80

Counterclaim

Back 80

Offensive claim against an opposing party

Front 81

Crossclaim

Back 81

Offensive claim against a co-party which must rise out of the same T/O as the underlying action (not compulsory)

Front 82

18(a)

Back 82

Joinder of claims - 'anything' standard for joining claims: one party can join 'as many claims as it has against an opposing party'

Front 83

20

Back 83

someone may join another to the case if the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and involve the same question of law or fact

Front 84

19(a)

Back 84

NECESSARY

-should join another to the case as long as it does not seriously impede the progress of the case and is feasible (there is PJ over party and joining him will not ruin diversity)

Front 85

19(b)

Back 85

INDISPENSABLE

Must join another to the case or there is simply no case to try;

(1) without absentee the court cannot complete relief;

(2) absentee’s interest may be harmed if he isn’t joined;

(3) absentee claims an interest, which subjects a party (usually D) to multiple obligations;

NOTE: joint-tortfeasors are NOT necessary parties [Temple]

Front 86

If joinder is not possible, what can the court do?

Back 86

If joinder is not feasible, the court may either (1) proceed without him or (2) dismiss the whole case. Factors on deciding whether to dismiss: (1) is there an alternative forum available; (2) what is the actual likelihood of prejudice; can the court shape relief to avoid that prejudice?

Front 87

14

Back 87

Impleader: a defending party wants to bring in someone new because that 3rd party may owe indemnity or contribution to the defending party

Front 88

22

Back 88

Interpleader: joinder where several persons have same claim to same assets: requires (1) complete diversity b/t stakeholder and all adverse claimants and $75K or FQ

Front 89

23(a)

Back 89

R.23(a): (1) numerosity (too many class members for practicable joinder), (2) commonality of law or fact (some questions of law or fact common to class), (3) typicality (representative’s claims/defenses typical of those of the class), (4) adequacy (class rep will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class

Front 90

23(b)(1)

Back 90

Prejudice: class treatment necessary to avoid harm either to class members to party opposing class; no notice, no opportunity to opt out, no need for common issues to predominate

Front 91

23(b)(2)

Back 91

Injunction: Final injunctive relief would be appropriate for the whole class; no notice to the class required; no opportunity to opt out; no need for common issues to predominate

Front 92

12(b)(3)

Back 92

Damages: predominance of the questions of law or fact and (2) superiority of the class action as a means of resolving the claims; Also required: (3) notice (IAWMullane – reasonably calculated to reach the class members under all the circumstances) and (4) class members have right to opt out

Front 93

26(b)(1)

Back 93

Scope of discovery: anything relevant (reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence) to a claim or defense (something in the pleadings)

Front 94

Interlocutory Review

Back 94

Pre-final judgment (as a right: anything having to do with injunctions; grant/denial of class certification)

Front 95

§1292(a)

Back 95

to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the proponent must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; irreparable harm without the injunction; that the benefits to the plaintiff outweigh the burden on the D

Front 96

§1292(b):

Back 96

Discretionary: upon its own discretion, DC may certify that there should be an interlocutory appeal and the Court of Appeals may accept the appeal, again based on its own discretion

Front 97

13(a)

Back 97

Counterclaim

Front 98

13(g)

Back 98

Cross claim

Front 99

17

Back 99

Real parties in Interest (Rose)

Front 100

42

Back 100

Consolidation & severance

Front 101

Joinder Devices

Back 101

1) Intervention (24)

2) Impleader (14)

3) Interpleader (22 & 18 USC 1355)

4) Class Actions 23

5) Shareholder Derivate Suit 23.1

Front 102

11

Back 102

Sanctions for frivolous pleadings

Front 103

16

Back 103

Pretrial conference/case management

Front 104

15

Back 104

Amendments

Front 105

Preliminary Injunction

Back 105

To succeed, proponent must show:

A likelihood on success on the merits;

§ Irreparable harm without the injunction

§ That the benefits to plaintiff outweigh the burden to the defendenatl

§ That the injunction comports with the public interest