Federal Jurisdiction And Procedure (Multi-State)

Front 1

Three Types of Personal Jurisdiction

Back 1

(1) In Personam Jurisdiction
(2) In Rem Jurisdiction
(3) Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Front 2

In Personam Jurisdiction

Back 2

Exists when the forum has power over the person of a particular defendant.

Front 3

In Rem Jurisdiction

Back 3

Exists when the court has power to adjudicate the rights of all persons in the world with respect to a particular item of property. Limited to situations where the property is located within the physical borders of the state and where it is necessary for the state to be able to bind all persons regarding the property's ownership and use. This occurs with respect to actions for condemnation (eminent domain), forfeiture of property to the state, and settlement of decedents' estates.

Front 4

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Back 4

One type exists when the court has power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property within the court's control. Unlike in rem jurisdiction, however, it doesn't permit a court to determine the right of all persons in the world regarding that property.

A second type of quasi in rem jurisdiction permits the court to adjudicate disputes other than ownership based on the presence of the defendant's property in the forum.

Front 5

Four Situations Where Most States Grant Their Courts In Personam Jurisdiction

Back 5

(1) Where defendant is present in the forum state and is personally served with process;
(2) Where the defendant is domiciled in the forum state;
(3) Where the defendant consents to jurisdiction; and
(4) Where the defendant has committed acts bringing him within the forum state's long arm statutes.

Front 6

Domicile

Back 6

Refers to the place where person maintains her permanent home. A U.S. citizen, even when domiciled abroad, is subject to personal jurisdiction in the U.S.

Front 7

Consent to Jurisdiction

Back 7

Express consent - by contract, by appointment of agent to accept service of process

Implied consent - engaging in activity that state has substantial reason to regulate (a non-resident driving in the state)

May consent by voluntary appearance

Front 8

Long Arm Statutes

Back 8

Most states have long arm statutes that specify in detail the situations in which their courts can exercise jurisdiction (tortious act within the state, transaction of business within the state, arises from ownership of property within the state, married couple that last lived in that state)

A few (such as California) have unlimited long arm statutes.

Front 9

Sufficient Contacts with the Forum (Constitutional Limitations on In Personam Jurisdiction)

Back 9

Traditional Rule: Jurisdiction over a person was a consequence of the state's physical power to carry out its judgment.

Modern Due Process Standard: International Shoe changed the traditional rule. The focus is now whether sufficient minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum so that maintenance of the suit against the defendant doesn't offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Front 10

Factors by Which to Assess the Constitutionality of Personal Jurisdiction

Back 10

(1) Contacts: (a) Purposeful availament, (b) Foreseeability.
(2) Fairness: (a) Relatedness of claim to contact, (b) convenience, (c) forum state's interest, (d) miscellaneous other factors.

Front 11

Defendants, Michigan residents, entered into a franchise contract with a Florida corporation. The agreement required, among other things, that fees be sent to the franchiser's home office in Florida, and provided that Florida law would govern any dispute. Could the defendants be sued in Florida?

Back 11

Yes - their contact with Florida resulted from their purposeful availment of that state.

Front 12

Father, in New York, agreed to give up custody of Daughter to Mother in California. Mother sued Father in California for additional support. Father's only contact with California was letting Daughter go there. Would California have in personam jurisdiction against Father?

Back 12

No, because Father could not be said to have purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of California law.

Front 13

Defendant, a New York car dealer, was sued in Oklahoma based on an injury that Plaintiff received from an accident in Oklahoma. The only basis for jurisdiction over Defendant was the sale of the allegedly defective car in New York by Defendant, who knew no more than that any vehicle sold might be driven elsewhere. Does Oklahoma have in personam jurisdiction?

Back 13

No, because no purposeful availment of of the privileges or protections of Oklahoma.

Front 14

Purposeful Availment

Back 14

Defendant's contact with the forum must result from her purposeful availment with that forum - can't be accidental. Must reach out to the forum in some way, such as to make money there or use the roads there. Courts must find that through these contacts the defendant purposefully availed herself "of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws."

Front 15

"Stream of Commerce" Cases

Back 15

Situation where something is manufactured in State A by Defendant1 and sold to Defendant2 in State B, who uses them in its products and sells them in States C, D, and E. If a Plaintiff is injured by Defendant1's part in State E, did Defendant1 purposely avail himself of State E? Hasn't been resolved definitively. Some say that by knowing it would be sold in that state, you did. Others say it takes more than that.

Front 16

Notice

Back 16

Due Process requires that a reasonable method be used to notify the defendant of a pending lawsuit so that she may have an opportunity to appear and be heard. Notice must be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."

Front 17

In Rem Jurisdiction Constitutional Limitations

Back 17

Nexus: In in rem actions, the basis of jurisdiction is the presence of the property in the state. The state has great interest in adjudicating the rights of all the world regarding this property. Therefore, the presence of the property in the state is constitutionally sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction over the property. Exercise of in rem power is prohibited when the property is brought into the state by fraud or force.

Notice: Early view was that the attachment of property, when supplemented by publication of notice in a local newspaper or posting of notice on the property, would give all interested persons sufficient notice. However, such procedures no longer adequate. Those persons whose interests are affected and whose addresses are known must be at least notified by ordinary mail.

Front 18

Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction

Back 18

Federal courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between:
(1) citizens of different states;
(2) citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
(3) citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a state or of different states.

Front 19

Corporate Citizenship

Back 19

A corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principle place of business.

Front 20

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, "states" includes...

Back 20

Territories, District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Front 21

A, B, and C bring an action against X, Y, and Z. A and B are citizens of New York. X and Y are citizens of Florida. C and Z are citizens of Texas. Will there be diversity jurisdiction?

Back 21

No - because there is no COMPLETE diversity. For complete diversity, no defendant and plaintiff can be co-citizens of the same state.

Front 22

D and E bring an action against F, G, and H. D and E are from Kansas, and F, G, and H are from Missouri. Will there be diversity jurisdiction?

Back 22

Yes - no plaintiff has the same citizenship as any defendant, so there is complete diversity.

Front 23

Interpleader Diversity Requirements

Back 23

Federal Interpleader Statute requires less diversity. As long as there is diversity between ANY TWO claimants, all others may be the citizens of the same state and diversity jurisdiction will still arise.

However, interpleader pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules requires usual diversity requirements.

Front 24

Citizenship of an Individual

Back 24

Domicile = citizenship.

A new state citizenship may be established by (1) physical presence in a new place, and (2) the intention to remain there.

Citizenship of a child is that of her parents.

Front 25

Principle Place of Business

Back 25

If a corporation has its executive offices in one state and its physical operation wholly or predominantly in another state, the PPB is the state where physical operations are conducted.

Whenever the corporation performs its operational activities in many states, the courts have typically applied a "home office" or "nerve center" test and held that the PPB is the state where the executive offices are located.

Front 26

Ancillary "Supplemental" Jurisdiction

Back 26

The court may entertain claims joined that could not, by themselves, invoke federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, under this doctrine, if they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact as the claim that invoked federal jurisdiction.

Front 27

Amount in Controversy

Back 27

Good faith is presumed.

Supreme Court has held that the collateral effects of a judgment may not be considered.

Excludes interests and costs.

If punitive damages allowed, the amounts sought may be used in making the dollar amount requirement, because there is no legal certainty that the amount will not be recovered.

May not aggregate claims not based on joint liability.

Front 28

Erie Doctrine

Back 28

A federal court, in the exercise of its diversity jurisdiction, is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting, including that state's conflict of law rules. However, the federal courts apply federal procedural law in diversity cases.

Front 29

Exceptions to Diversity Jurisdiction

Back 29

Federal Court will not take jurisdiction in Domestic Relations proceedings and Probate proceedings.

Front 30

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Back 30

The federal courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S.

Front 31

Federal Question Must Appear in the Complaint

Back 31

Must appear as part of the Plaintiff's cause of action as set out in a well-pleaded complaint. Must be as such that the defendant's answer or defense is irrelevant - cannot anticipate a defense to make it a federal question.

Front 32

Pendent (Supplemental) Jurisdiction Over State Claims

Back 32

This is the situation where the plaintiff will have both federal and state claims against the defendant. Although there may be no diversity, the federal court has discretion to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state claim if the two claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact" and are such that a plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding."

Front 33

Pendent Parties Jurisdiction

Back 33

Relevant in cases in which the plaintiff sues more than one defendant, there is federal jurisdiction over the claim against one defendant, and the claim against the 2nd defendant does not invoke federal jurisdiction.

Front 34

Venue When Federal Jurisdiction Based Entirely on Diversity

Back 34

May be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

Front 35

Venue When Federal Jurisdiction Not Based Entirely on Diversity

Back 35

May be brought only in
(1) judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state,
(2) judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

Front 36

Change of Venue

Back 36

For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.

Front 37

Residence

Back 37

Individuals: Residence for venue = domicile

Corporations: Any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.

Front 38

Can improper venue be waived by the parties?

Back 38

Yes. It is considered to be waived unless there is a timely objection.

Front 39

What law is applicable when venue is transferred?

Back 39

If the original venue was proper, and the transfer was purely on convenience grounds, the law applicable is that of the transferor court.

If the original venue was improper, generally, the law of the transferee court will apply.

Front 40

Removal Jurisdiction

Back 40

A defendant can only remove an action that could have been originally brought by the plaintiff in the federal courts. Removal is tested only as of the date of removal. The state court need not have had jurisdiction.

Only defendants can exercise the right of removal - and all must join the motion.

Front 41

Limitations on Removal Jurisdiction in Diversity Cases

Back 41

When the jurisdiction of the federal court is based on diversity and one of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the state action was brought, the action is not removable.

A case may not be removed on the basis of diversity more than one year after it was commenced in state court.

A case must be removed no later than 30 days after the defendant discovers that it has become removable.

Front 42

Procedure of Removal

Back 42

(1) Notice of Removal filed
(2) Must be filed within 30 days
(3) After removal, case proceeds according to the federal rules of procedure - repleading not necessary
(4) Jury trial must be demanded if desired within 10 days of notice of removal
(5) Plaintiff can file a motion to have the case sent back to state court

Front 43

Doctrine of Abstention

Back 43

Under certain circumstances the federal courts will retain jurisdiction over a suit involving a challenge to the constitutionality of a state law but abstain from deciding the question until a decision has been made by the state courts on the meaning of the state law. A determinative interpretation of the state law may obviate the federal constitutional question.

Front 44

Exception to Doctrine of Abstention

Back 44

Federal intervention on constitutional grounds may occur if the federal plaintiff can demonstrate:
(1) Great and immediate irreparable injury;
(2) Bad faith in the prosecution of the state action; or
(3) Harassment or other unusual circumstances calling for federal equitable relief.

Front 45

Who may serve process?

Back 45

Rule 4 authorizes any person not a party who is at least 18 years old to serve process. A party may, in limited circumstances, request that service be made by a U.S. Marshal or by another person appointed by the court for that purpose.

Front 46

How is service made?

Back 46

Rule 4 provides that personal service or service left at the defendant's usual place of abode with one of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or service upon the authorized agent of the defendant, is valid. Service may also be made by mail or state regulations.

Front 47

Parties Served Outside State

Back 47

The court will acquire personal jurisdiction over parties served outside the state:
(1) Under statute and rules for extraterritorial service of the state in which the federal court sits (domiciliaries, long arm jurisdiction, and in rem jurisdiction);
(2) If they are third party defendants or required to be joined for just adjudication, if served within 100 miles from the place where the action is pending (but within the U.S.); and
(3) If out-of-state service is permitted by federal statute.

Front 48

Interlocutory Injunctions

Back 48

An equitable remedy by which a person is ordered to act or to refrain from acting in a specific manner. Interlocutory injunctions are granted to maintain the status quo until a trial on the merits may be held.

Front 49

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

Back 49

Granted by a court when it was necessary to prevent irreparable injury to a party, and the injury will result before a preliminary injunction hearing can be held. Expires within 10 days unless the restrained party consents to an extension or good cause is shown for an extension.

Front 50

Complaint

Back 50

Each claim for relief should contain:
(1) A short statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction;
(2) A short statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) A demand or judgment for relief, which may be in the alternative.

Front 51

Pre-Answer Motions

Back 51

Rule 12(b) - Prior to filing an answer, the defendant may, if he chooses, file a motion and raise any or all of the following defenses:
(1) Lack of subject matter jurisdiction (can be brought at any time);
(2) Lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) Improper venue;
(4) Insufficiency of process;
(5) Insufficiency of service of process;
(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (i.e., even if plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, relief could not be granted); or
(7) Failure to join a party needed for a just adjudication.

Front 52

Waiver of Defenses

Back 52

If lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process are not brought up when filing pre-answer motion or answer, they are waived. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to join a party needed for a just adjudication may be brought up any time before trial.

Front 53

Answer

Back 53

Must contain denials or admissions, and any affirmative defenses. May also use a statement to the effect that the defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a belief on said averment, which will constitute a denial. A failure to deny constitutes an admission.

Front 54

Time of Answer

Back 54

If no Rule 12 motions, answer must be presented 20 days after service. If a Rule 12 motion is made, and the court doesn't fix another time, the responsive pleading is to be served within 10 days of the court's denial or postponement of the Rule 12 motion.

Front 55

Reply to Answer

Back 55

Reply by plaintiff only required where the defendant's answer contains a counterclaim denominated as such. Reply must be served within 20 days of service of the answer.

Front 56

Amendment

Back 56

A pleading may be amended once before a responsive pleading is served, or if no responsive pleading required, within 20 days of service of the pleading. Thereafter - may only be amended by written consent of adverse party or by leave of the court upon motion.

Amendments relate back to the date that the original pleading was filed if the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the amendment was set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.

Front 57

Supplemental Pleadings

Back 57

Relate to matters occurring after the date of the original pleading. The permission of the court, upon motion, is required. Permission may be granted even though the original pleading is defective in its statement of claim for release or a defense.

Front 58

Compulsory Joinder of Parties

Back 58

Under Rule 19, a party is "needed for just adjudication" if:
(1) complete relief cannot be given to existing parties in her absence;
(2) disposition in her absence may impair her ability to protect her interest in the controversy; or
(3) her absence would expose existing parties to a substantial risk of double or inconsistent obligations.

These parties must be joined if they are amenable to process and their joinder will not destroy diversity or venue.

If joinder isn't possible, the court must decide whether it can proceed in their absence or it must be dismissed. Cases have shown a preference for dismissal if there is a state forum where all the parties may be joined in practice as well as in theory.

Front 59

Permissive Joinder of Parties

Back 59

Parties may join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants whenever:
(1) Some claim is made by each plaintiff and against each defendant relating to or arising out of the same series of occurrences or transactions; and
(2) There is a question of fact or law common to all the parties.

Front 60

Class Action Prerequisites

Back 60

Rule 23 allows named representatives to sue on behalf of a class if:
(1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) There are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) The named parties' interests are typical of the class;
(4) The named representatives will ensure the fair and adequate representation of the interests of absent members of the class; and
(5) The action meets any of the following requirements of 23(b):
(a) Separate actions by class members would create a risk of inconsistent results or, as a practical matter, would impair the interests of other absent members of the class; or
(b) A defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds applicable to the class and injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate for the class as a whole (e.g., most civil rights actions); or
(c) There are questions of fact or law common to members of the class that predominate over individual issues and a class action is superior to the alternative methods of adjudication.

Front 61

Protections Under the Class Action Fairness Act

Back 61

Coupon settlements can be approved, but only after a hearing where the judge finds that the settlement is fair.

A court may approve a settlement that would have the effect of monetary loss if there is a finding that non-monetary benefits substantially outweigh the monetary loss.

Court may not approve a settlement that provides larger payouts for some because they are located closer to the court.

Front 62

Interpleader

Back 62

Permits a person in the position of a stakeholder to require two or more claimants to litigate among themselves to determine which, if any, has the valid claim where separate actions might result in double liability on a single obligation. Available under Rule 22.

Front 63

Disclosure Requirements

Back 63

Before making disclosure, a party has an obligation to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts of the case. Rule 26 requires parties to disclose all information "then reasonably available" (and not privileged or protected as work product).

Front 64

Three Types of Disclosures

Back 64

(1) Initial Disclosures
(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony
(3) Pretrial Disclosures

Front 65

Initial Disclosures

Back 65

Without waiting for discovery request, party must provide to other parties:
(1) Names, addresses, phone numbers of individuals likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment;
(2) Copies or descriptions of documents or things in the disclosing party's possession or control that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment;
(3) A computation of damages claimed by the disclosing party and copies of materials upon which the computation is based; and
(4) Copies of insurance agreements under which an insurer might be liable for all or part of any judgment that might be entered.

Must be made within 14 days after meeting of the parties pursuant to Rule 26(f).

Front 66

Disclosure of Expert Testimony

Back 66

A party must also disclose to other parties the identities of expert witnesses expected to be used at trial. Must be accompanied by a report prepared and signed by each expert witness stating her qualifications, opinions to be expressed, and the basis for those opinions. Disclosure must be made at least 90 days before trial, or within 30 days of disclosure of expert testimony this is offered to rebut.

Front 67

Pretrial Disclosures

Back 67

At least 30 days before trial, a party must disclose to the other parties and file with the court a list of the witnesses she expects to call at trial, the witnesses she will call if the need arises, the witnesses whose testimony will be presented by means of a deposition and a transcript of pertinent portions of the deposition, and a list of documents or exhibits she expects to offer or might offer if needed. Objections to use of the depositions at trial must be made within 14 days of this disclosure, or waived.

Front 68

Scope of Discovery and Disclosure

Back 68

Discovery may be had of any matter not privileged that is "relevant to the claim or defense of any party," including identity of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.

Work product of lawyers and others in anticipation of litigation is discoverable only upon showing "substantial need" and to avoid "undue hardship" in obtaining materials in an alternative way.

A party may depose experts who are expected to be called at trial (testifying experts). Consulting experts may be discovered only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable to obtain facts or opinions by other means.

A party has a duty to supplement required disclosures if she learns that the information disclosed was materially incomplete or incorrect and the new information hasn't been made known to the other party in discovery or in writing.

Front 69

Six Ways to Conduct Discovery

Back 69

(1) Oral Deposition of a Witness, Including a Party-Witness (Rule 30)
(2) Deposition of Witnesses Upon Written Questions (Rule 31)
(3) Interrogatories of the Parties - 30 days to respond (Rule 33)
(4) Production of Physical Material (Rule 34)
(5) Physical and Mental Examinations (Rule 35)
(6) Requests for Admission (Rule 36)

Front 70

Sanctions for Discovery Violations

Back 70

Court can:
(1) order the matters to be treated as admitted;
(2) prohibit the party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses;
(3) striking pleadings, staying or dismissing the action, or rendering default judgment;
(4) holding the delinquent party or witness in contempt; or
(5) informing the jury of the failure to make that disclosure (as well as disallowing the non-disclosed item from being admitted by the non-disclosing party).

Front 71

Use of Depositions at Trial or Hearing

Back 71

Subject to the rules of evidence, a deposition may be used against any party who was present at the deposition or had notice of it:
(1) To impeach the testimony of the deponent as a witness;
(2) For any purpose if the court finds that the deponent (including a party-deponent) is dead, at a distance greater than 100 miles from the trial (unless absence was procured by the party offering the deposition), or unable to testify because of age, sickness, etc; or
(3) For any purpose if the deponent is an adverse party.

Front 72

Pretrial Conferences

Back 72

Rule 26(f) - Planning for Discovery

Rule 16(b) - Scheduling Conference (must be made within 120 days of complaint being served on defendant) - create a scheduling order limiting the time for joinder, motions, and discovery.

Front 73

Jury Trial Demand

Back 73

Rule 38 - Requires that the party who desires a jury trial to file a written demand with the court and serve it on the parties. Failure to do so within 10 days after filing the pleading in which the jury-triable issue arose constitutes a waiver by that party to any right of jury trial. Court may, upon its discretion, order a jury trial if the plaintiff's waiver was not intentional.

Front 74

Jury Size and Composition

Back 74

In federal civil cases, a jury must have at least 6, but not more than 12, jurors. No provision for alternate jurors. A juror may be excused for good cause without causing a mistrial, so long as at least 6 jurors participate in reaching the verdict. Must be unanimous unless all parties agree to the contrary.

(Arkansas - 12 are needed, but only 9 for verdict)

Front 75

Consolidation and Separate Trials

Back 75

Rule 42(a) allows court to consolidate actions when they have a common question of law or fact.

Rule 42(b) allows the court to order separate trials of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or other issues when such separation will foster judicial economy.

Front 76

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Formerly Directed Verdict)

Back 76

Rule 50(a): Motion may be made by any party anytime before submission of the case to the jury, and the moving party must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts on which it is entitled to judgment. The motion may be granted only after the non-moving party "has been fully heard" and regarding issues of claims as to which "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury" to conclude in favor of the non-moving party.

Front 77

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Formerly Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or "JNOV")

Back 77

Rule 50(b): Must be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment. The moving party must have moved for a judgment as a matter of law at the close of all evidence to preserve the right to have the court consider a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The standard is the same as for the motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Front 78

Motion for New Trial

Back 78

Must be filed no later than 10 days after judgment is entered. Within that period, the court may order a new trial on its own motion. Reasons to grant a new trial: error during the trial, verdict is against the weight of the evidence, or because verdict is excessive.

Front 79

Remittitur

Back 79

If the trial judge feels that the jury's compensatory damages award is so excessive as to "shock the conscience," the judge may order a new trial or may offer the alternative of remittitur, where plaintiff can either accept an award less than given by the jury or submit to a new trial. Judge cannot just lower the award.

Front 80

Summary Judgment

Back 80

Rule 56: Must be granted if, from the pleadings, affidavits, and discovery materials, it appears that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If there are ANY disputed material facts, the case must go to trial.

Front 81

Time for Summary Judgment

Back 81

Claimant may move for summary judgment at any time after 20 days from commencement of the action or after service of a motion for summary judgment by an adverse party. A defending party may move at any time. Motion must be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing.

Front 82

Can summary judgment be rendered in part?

Back 82

Yes. For example, it may be rendered on the issue of liability alone, although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.

Front 83

Can you appeal the denial of a motion for summary judgment?

Back 83

Generally, no.

Front 84

Judgment

Back 84

The court is not limited (except in default cases) to the demand for relief in the pleadings and may give any relief that is appropriate based on the evidence.

Front 85

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Back 85

Has direct appeal jurisdiction from any order granting or denying an injunction in any proceeding required to be heard by a three-judge court.

Front 86

Court of Appeals Cases

Back 86

Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court:
(1) by certiorari granted upon petition of any party to any civil/criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree; or
(2) by certification by the court of appeals of any question of law in any civil/criminal case as to which it desires instructions.

Front 87

Cases from Highest State Court

Back 87

Final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which decision could be had may reviewed by the Supreme Court by certiorari in the following circumstances:
(1) Where the validity of a treaty/federal statute is drawn into question; or
(2) Where the validity of a state statute is drawn into question on the ground that it is repugnant to the federal Constitution or to a treaty/federal statute; or
(3) Where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the federal Constitution or treaty/federal statute.

Front 88

Res Judicata

Back 88

Once a final judgment on the merits has been rendered on a particular cause of action, the claimant is barred by res judicata (also called claim preclusion) from asserting the same cause of action in a later lawsuit.

Requirements:
(1) earlier judgment is a valid, final judgment on the merits;
(2) the cases are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant, and
(3) the same "cause of action" is involved in the later lawsuit.

Front 89

Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

Back 89

A judgment binds the plaintiff or defendant (or their privies) in subsequent actions on different causes of action between them (or their privies) as to issues actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action. Much narrower than res judicata.

Requirements:
(1) First case ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits;
(2) Issue was actually litigated and determined (no default or consent judgment); and
(3) Issue was essential to the judgment rendered.

Front 90

Who is bound by a judgment?

Back 90

(1) Parties to the action
(2) Privies to parties
(3) Persons whose interests are represented
(4) Persons in vicarious liability situations (employer-employee, principal-agent, etc) where the exoneration of either is generally held to preclude an action on the same claim against the other.

Front 91

Exceptions to Mutuality (Collateral Estoppel)

Back 91

Courts have been very reluctant to permit a non-party to use a judgment to aid him (as a plaintiff) to obtain relief, though sometimes they'll allow it (example was a case involving the SEC).

Front 92

Four-Part Test to Determine Whether a Stranger May Rely on a Prior Judgment

Back 92

(1) Was the issue decided in the first case identical to that in the second?
(2) Was there a final judgment on the merits?
(3) Did the party against whom the judgment is to be used have a fair opportunity to be heard on the critical issue?
(4) Is the posture of the case such that it would not be unfair or inequitable to a party to apply collateral estoppel?

If all answered affirmatively, collateral estoppel will be upheld.