• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

24 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Right to Jury trial: Rule statement
The 7th amendment preserves the right to jury trial in federal court in all “suits of common law” where the amount in controversy exceeds $20. The distinction turns on whether historically the claim for relief was at law or in equity.
Right to jury trial where legal and equitable claims joined in a single action.
Where legal and equitable claims are joined in a single action, the legal claims should be tried first to the jury before the equitable claims are determined by the judge.
Four “bases” of jxn analysis
2) Long arm statute—has the state imposed limits on courts exercise of jxn
3) Traditional Basis—consent, domicile or presence. (Can Do People)
4) General Jxn—systematic & continuous
5) Minimum Contacts
Personal Jxn Issue Statement
The issue is whether the court has personal jxn over the defendants. Personal jxn is the power of the court to hale a particular def into court and subject them to coercive judgments.
Long arm statute issue statement
The long arm statute provides that jxn over nonresidents may be exercised on any basis not inconsistent with the US Constitution. Under this statute, jxn is proper so long as it is constitutional.
Traditional basis for in personam jxn: rule statement
In personam jxn exists where the defendant either consents to the courts exercise of jxn, is domiciled w/in the forum state, or is present and personally served with process in the forum state.
General Jxn Rule Statement
General jxn of the court exists where defendant’s contacts with the forum state are systematic and continuous such that the courts assertion of jxn is reasonable for all purposes.
Jxn: Minimum Contacts Rule Statement
Jxn is constitutional when sufficient minimum contacts exist between the def and the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (analyze min contacts and then REASONABLENESS)
Min Contacts & Fairness
(Magic words but treat the separately)
Min Contacts:
2) Did D PURPOSELY AVAIL itself of the benefits and protections of state law
3) FORESEEABLE that it might be sued in state: Should D have reasonably anticipated that its activities could give rise to a COA in the state
1) Did the COA arise from D’s ACTIVITY w/in the STATE.
2) CONVENIENCE to witnesses
3) Fairness to D and PLF.
Min Contact special circumstances
1) Contract Cases Contracting w/ Forum state resident alone insufficient. Look at prior negotiations, future consequences, terms of K, course of dealings. Professional (i.e. lawyer) K with out-of-state client, insufficient contacts with foreign state.
2) Products liability Worldwide VW; Asahi: Stream of commerce analysis. Strict liability for defective product attaches to all sellers in the chain of commerce. One who places a product in the stream of commerce and intends to benefit from sales in the forum state—must anticipate resulting harm. Contrast Asahi, component manufacturer—foreseeable that product would end up in the forum state?
3) Intentional Torts: Def commits intentional act, expressly aimed at forum state, resulting in harm def knows is likely to be suffered in forum state.
4) Internet Website alone insufficient basis for jxn. Continuum—interactive website at one extreme, passive informational page at the other. Paradox: aiming different than throwing with eyes closed.
Diversity Jxn: State of Corporate Citizenship
A corporation is deemed a citizen of
1) Every state of incorporation and
2) Principal place of business.
If corporate office in one state & physical operation predominantly in another, PPB = physical operations.
If physical operation in many states, PPB = nerve center, executive offices state.
Supplemental jxn
Federal court has discretion to exercise supplemental jxn to hear claims that otherwise are without basis for federal jxn if those claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts. Common nucleus means same transaction or occurrence.
Supplemental jxn extends to compulsory counterclaims. Thus no independent basis for S/M jxn is necessary to support a counterclaim, provided the claim arises from a common nucleus of operative fact.
Res Judicata rule statement
Once a FINAL JUDGMENT has been rendered on the MERITS as to a particular COA, plaintiff is barred by res judicata from re-litigating that claim in a later suit.
Res Judicata w/r/t subsequent causes of action
Res judicata bars subsequent causes of action which should have been asserted in the earlier lawsuit, if those claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence that was litigated in the prior suit. The modern rule requires assertion of all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the claims asserted by plaintiff. However, in California the “primary rights docrine” applies whereby a COA is defined as invasion of a single, primary right. Subsequent actions asserting a different primary right are not barred, even though arising out of the same transaction or occurrence.
Collateral estoppel rule statement
A judgment for plaintiff or def is conclusive in a subsequent suit on a different COA between them--or those in privity--on issues actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action.
Non-mutual collateral estoppel
Traditional collateral estoppel requires mutuality of parties and only applies to parties to the original action or those in privity with them. Under the modern rule, collateral estoppel will apply to a non party where
1) Identical issues
2) Final judgment on the merits
3) Party subject to collateral estoppel had FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
4) NOT UNFAIR OR INEQUITABLE to apply collateral estoppel in the present case.
Erie Doctrine Rule Statement
A federal court exercising diversity jxn must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits but apply federal procedural law. when it is unclear whether a state law is substantive or procedural, a court will use the “outcome determinative” test and will apply a state rule if that rule will substantially determines the outcome of the litigation.
Erie Doctrine: State SOL
A federal procedural rule will not be applied in diversity cases when its effect would toll the state SOL.
Relation back doctrine
Amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading if the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the amendment was set forth in the original pleading. An amendment may add new parties if the party has received notice of the action such that they will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits and knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity, the action would have originally been brought against that party. These requirements must have occurred w/in 120 days of the original filing date.
Summary judgment rule statement
Summary judgment must be granted if there is no GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT and the moving party is entitled to JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
Removal to federal court
A def may remove an action that could have originally been brought by plaintiff in federal court.
Remand from federal court to state court
A plaintiff can file a motion to have the case remanded back to state court and the court must remand upon a showing that the federal court lacks jxn.
Compulsory counterclaims in federal court
Def must raise all claims against the plaintiff which arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
Supplemental jxn
No independent basis for S/M jxn is necessary to support
supplemental jxn