Cases

Question 1

Pennoyer v. Neff

Answer 1

Topic: Personal Jurisdiction - Specific/Nexus

Facts: Conflict over unpaid legal services, issue with land, couldn’t assert personal jurisdiction because property ownership alone was not enough.

Rule: Personal jurisdiction is limited to where the people physically are within it boundaries of a state.

Question 2

International Shoe

Answer 2

Topic: Personal Jurisdiction - Specific/Nexus

Facts: Shoe company not incorporated in Washington but doing business there but not paying into unemployment, based on Pennoyer they couldn’t be sued there, court said that wasn’t fair and extended PJ past phsycial boundaries.

Rule: Three part test: minimum contacts, nexus, moral fairness.

Question 3

WWVW

Answer 3

Topic: Personal Jurisdiction - Specific/Nexus

Facts: Diving the car through Oklahoma and crashed, tried to sue in Oklahoma, WWVW said they conducted no business in Oklahoma and had no contacts there, plaintiff said well if the car moves you should foresee being sued everywhere, court ruled for WWVW.

Rule: Forgeability is not enough, they have to have minimum contacts and purposeful availment.

Question 4

Burger King

Answer 4

Topic: Personal Jurisdiction - Specific/Nexus

Facts: Burger king franchisee in Michigan, HQ in Florida, choice of law provision in the contract, attended conferences and trainings in Florida, broke franchise agreement sued, supreme court found there was personal jurisdiction in Florida.

Rule: contracts + other course of dealing will satisfy the minimum contacts test.

Question 5

Nicastro

Answer 5

Topic: Personal Jurisdiction - Specific/Nexus

Facts: Metal shearing company, injury happened in NJ but company was in England, never marketed specifically in NJ but in America as a whole, court found there was no pj.

Rule: You have to purposely avail yourself to a market to have personal jurisdiction - goes with minimum contacts.

Question 6

Ford Motors

Answer 6

Topic: Personal Jurisdiction - Specific/Nexus

Facts: Man bought a ford in another state because Ford marketing, has service stations, and made themselves known in the Montana market, died, even though ppb or place of incorporation was not there the nexus came out of or was related to the contacts with the forum state.

Rule: The state can have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in an action that came out of the nonresidents purposeful contact with the forum state.

Question 7

Daimler

Answer 7

Topic: Personal jurisdiction - General

Facts: Argentinean war, bringing suit against the parent company, parent company was not at home in the state, there was no personal jurisdiction.

Rule: A court has to be “essentially at home” in the forum state for the court to have general jurisdiction over them: principle place of business and incorporation.

Question 8

Bates

Answer 8

Topic: Venue

Facts: Sent notice to a house, was forwarded to the next house in another judicial district, plaintiff brought suit in his district, company said venue wasn’t proper, court ruled that is was.

Rule: 28 USC 1391(b) - venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides if all the defendants reside in the same state or the judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Question 9

Piper Aircraft

Answer 9

Topic: Forum Non Convenus

Facts: Crash in Scotland, plane evidence and parts in England, case brought in America. Would have been more convenient to have it in Scotland.

Rule: If there is an appropriate alternative forum, the judge can use their discretion and move the venue if they balance out the private factors and the public factors.

Question 10

Mas

Answer 10

Topic: Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity

Statute: 28 USC § 1332

Facts: Landlord watching newly married couple, couple moved and sued in federal court and were students who didn’t intend to stay, allowed woman to keep her parent’s home as a domicile, stayed in state court, also didn’t like that he was awarded only 10K but the amount was pleaded in good faith.

Rule: As long as parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is $75k+ that was pleaded in good faith, diversity is good. Domicile is your last home that you fully intended to stay at permanently.

Question 11

Mottley

Answer 11

Topic: Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Federal Question

Statute: 28 USC § 1331

Facts: Railroad accident, lifetime settlement free passes, congress says no free passes so railroad stops giving them, Mottleys sue and try to bring it in state court because of the anticipated defense of the railroad which would include the federal statute.

Rule: If the plaintiff’s claim is not based on a federal question, it does not matter if they anticipate a federal defense they can’t bring it in federal court.

Question 12

Grable

Answer 12

Topic: Supplemental Jurisdiction

Facts: State claim with federal elements, property seized due to tax delinquency, quiet title claim, but the IRS didn’t notify him the way they were supposed to under federal law. KEY: IN THE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT - NOT AN ANTICIPATED DEFENSE

Rule: Are they actually in dispute, is it necessary to resolve the state claim, is it substantial enough to warrant federal court decisions, and would it interfere with the balance of state and federal powers?

Question 13

Gibbs

Answer 13

Topic: Supplemental Jurisdiction

Facts: Mine workers, union, federal claim and state claim, only jurisdiction over the federal question, court allowed supplemental jurisdiction. This was later codified by 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Rule: You can bring a state claim with a federal claim as long as it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Question 14

Owen

Answer 14

Topic: Supplemental Jurisdiction

Facts: Issues with utility company, claim was brought, defendant impleaded 3rd party who was same citizenship as plaintiff but diversity was not destroyed until the plaintiff brought individual claims against the third party.

Rule: If you have the same citizenship as a 3rd party defendant who is impleaded, bringing claims against them will destroy diversity and your case will be dismissed.

Question 15

Exxon Mobile

Answer 15

Topic: Supplemental Jurisdiction

Facts: Class action found that they could aggregate, little girls family found they could attach their claims without meeting the amount in controversy

Rule: When they codified 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and they put the exceptions for diversity into subsection (b), they left it do permissive joiners under rule 20 and 23 could still bring claims even when they don’t meet the AOC.

Question 16

Catterpillar

Answer 16

Topic: Removal

Statute: 28 U.S.C. § 144, 1445-1448

Facts: Brought in state court, removed to federal court but not diverse parties so asked for a remand and then was denied, diversity was not present until right before the start of trial, supreme court said they should have remanded it but since diversity existed at the time of the verdict they weren’t going to do a new trial.

Rule: Remanding something to state court when remand was improperly denied but there was SMJ by the time of the verdict would be a wasteful burden on the parties, judges and other litigants

Question 17

Swift

Answer 17

Topic: Erie Doctrine

Facts: Issue over bill of exchange in federal court, rules and decisions act Reuters that state statutory law is enforced but not common law.

Rule: Federal rules of civil procedure, state substantive law - statutory law but can’t use common law. If it’s common law then you have to used judge made “general law”

Question 18

Eerie

Answer 18

Topic: Erie Doctrine

Facts: Railroad, severed arm, there was no statuary law that governed duties to trespassers only common law, trial court uses general law under Swift, Supreme court reverses and says common law is okay.

Rule: Federal rules of civil procedure, state substantive law - statutory and common law.

Question 19

Byrd

Answer 19

Topic: Erie Doctrine

Facts: Electrical work, burned and amputation, question of fact about immunity was decided by a judge which is okay in state law by not in federal, supreme court said no they can’t do that because of the 7th amendment.

Rule: State law can not alter the essential character of function of federal court, and facts being decided by jury is an essential function of that.

Question 20

Hanna

Answer 20

Topic: Erie Doctrine

Facts: Car crash victim, plaintiff serves process in accordance with FRCP but not state laws

Rule: A federal rule must win when it collide with a state statute as long as it’s not modifying, abridging, enlarging and state substantive right. If they do not regulate the same conduct, then look to if the difference in law that would be used would be outcome determinative.

Question 21

Shady Grove

Answer 21

Topic: Erie Doctrine

Statute 28 U.S.C. 2072: Use the federal rules of civil procedure unless it modifies, enlarges, or abridges a state substantive right.

Facts: NY class action against Allstate seeking penalties and statutory minimum damages, class recovering that barred in New York,

Rule: If there is a conflict, it’s not the substantive or procedural approach of the state law that matters, it’s the substantive of procedural approach of the federal rule that matters.

Question 22

Aramco

Answer 22

Topic: Erie Doctrine

Facts: Carpenter injured on nail that shattered, claim was filed before statute of limitations was up but served after, would be barred under state law but not FRCP Rule 3 because they had different definitions of “commenced”, they did not necessarily conflict because one was used for docket timing and the other statute of lim, court went with state law.

Rule: If there is no conflict between state law and FRCP, then use state law

Question 23

Hamdi

Answer 23

Topic: Due Process

14th and 5th Amendment

Facts: U.S. citizen held as an enemy combatant, denied a trial, U.S. supreme court says that U.S. citizens have certain rights to due process so he could have a modified trial before a neutral decision maker

Rule: Every citizen is entitled to due process, the extent of due process is determined by weighing the impact of a private interest v.s. the government’s asserted interest.

Question 24

Green

Answer 24

Topic: Notice

FRCP 4 and Mullane: Due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of all pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections

Facts: Housing Authority trying to evict people, service proper based on state statute but the tenants never knew, kids grabbing notice off door

Rule: Service has to comply with both the due process clauses and the state statue and Rule 4

Question 25

Jones

Answer 25

Topic: Notice

FRCP 4 and Mullane: Due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of all pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections

Facts: Jones has house, doesn’t live in house, wife doesn’t pay property tax, try and sever him at that house through certified mail, know that he isn’t getting it because it’s getting returned, sells it, found that there was a violation of due process and rule 4.

Rule: When a notice is returned undelivered, additional steps must be taken to notify the property owner before selling the property because you know they were not reasonably apprised.

Question 26

Mid-Continent

Answer 26

Topic: Notice

FRCP 4

Facts: Defendant dodging service, lawyer was notified of settlement offer and steps were taken, more issues, finally brought to court, 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, found service was not proper

Rule: You have to serve someone under rule 4, it’s not enough for them to know about the suit.

Question 27

Swierkiewicz

Answer 27

Topic: Pleadings

FRCP: 8(a)(2) short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to such relief

Facts: Age discrimination, couldn’t make out a prima facie case, lower courts dismissed his pleading and supreme court reversed.

Rule: Using the Conley standard, no set of facts, this was enough. Was also enough under 8(2)(a).

Question 28

Twombly

Answer 28

Topic: Pleadings

Facts: AT&T anti-trust case, anticompetitive behavior, only consistent with legal conduct, motion 12(b)(6), court said didn’t meet the plausibility standard.

FRCP 8(a)(2)

Rule: Created plausibility > probability standard for antitrust cases

Question 29

Iqbal

Answer 29

Topic: Pleadings

Facts: Arrested for suspicion after 9/11, allegations against FBI Director and U.S. A.G., 12(b)(6) motion,

Rule: Expanded plausibility standard to all cases. Must alledge enough facts that, if true, would make out a prima facie case.

Question 30

Swanson

Answer 30

Topic: Pleadings

Facts: Claimed discrimination against Citibank for a home equity loan, dismissed under 12(b)(6), and

FRCP: Rule 8(a)(2) - short and plain statement upon which the pleader is seeking relief

Rule: This probably does not pass the Twombly Iqbal test, but the court let it slide.

Question 31

Trump

Answer 31

Topic: Pleading - Amendment

Facts: Trump campaign amended their pleading many times, wanted to amend again to add back in claims that had already been litigated, amendment was denied and denial was affirmed.

FRCP 15(a)(2)

Rule: The amendment would be inequitable (prejudice the other side) and was futile

Question 32

Crompton

Answer 32

Topic: Pleading - Answers & Amendments

FRCP: 15(a) amendments

Facts: Business bought another one, said they had lack of information in their answer, they had exclusive control over the knowledge of that information

Rule: 15(a)(2) The court will not give leave to an amendment when they should have already considered that, if it will prejudice the other side, if it’s in bad faith, if there are legally insufficient claims

Question 33

Krupski

Answer 33

Topic: Pleading - Answers & Amendments

FRCP: 15(c) - Relation back of Amendments

Facts: Cruise, Italian company with American location, sued wrong party, statute was up, related back to original date.

Rule: 15(c)(1)(c)(ii) You can relate back if the amendment changes the party or the naming party against a whole claim asserted if the defendant had notice of the action and knew or should have known they would be the proper defendant if not for mistaken identity.

Question 34

McCormick

Answer 34

Topic: Pleadings/Sanctions

Facts: Woman wrongful death/survival, husband in car accident, mutually exclusive claims, recovered under both, court said actually she can’t.

FRCP: 8(d)(2) - claims can be brought regardless of consistency

Rule: You can bring two mutually exclusive claims if you don’t know which one has factual merit, but when the factual merit is discovered then you can’t recover under both claims.

Question 35

Zuk

Answer 35

Topic: Pleadings - Sanction s

FRCP: 11(Sanctions) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Facts: Copy write, didn’t actually own what he claimed, statute of limitations were up, attorneys fees under 11

Rule: 1927: no vexatious conduct
11: allegations not based in existing law or fact where the attorney failed to do due diligence can receive sanctions

Question 36

Whitmer

Answer 36

Topic: Pleadings - Sanctions

FRCP: 11

Facts: Trump campaign, election accusations, no due diligence, did not withdraw after safe harbor period

Rule: You can receive sanctions if your pleadings are submitted for an improper purpose under 11(b)(1). “Empty head full heart” not a defense.

Question 37

Hickman

Answer 37

Topic: Discovery - Privilege

Note: This was before FRCP 26(b)(3) was established, but is is the basis for the work product doctrine.

Facts: Forty, tugboat, deposed living people and made notes, suit is brought, plaintiff’s lawyer asked for those notes, court told him not.

Rule: Attorney work product is not available for discovery unless it is 100% necessary for the case and there is absolutely no other way they can get it without incurring substantial burden.

Question 38

Davis

Answer 38

Topic: Discovery - Scope and Burden

FRCP: Rule 26(b) (Why is each discovery relevant)

Facts: Dianna Ross and assistant, fired/quit controversy, both 34’d each other and then 37’d each other, judge had unfair bias towards Ross and granted all her motions but denied all Davis’

Rule: Judges have lots of discretion under rule 37 and can be biased sometimes.

Question 39

Kozlowski

Answer 39

Topic: Discovery - Scope and Burden

Relevant FRCP: Rule 26(b)(1) - things don’t have to be admissible to be discoverable. The have to take into consideration the balancing factors here too.

Facts: pajamas on fire, sears didn’t give rule 34 documents, rule 37 motion, default judgment issued as punishment

Rule: It doesn’t matter if discovery is costly or time consuming if it is relevant to the discovery of evidence if it is proportional to the needs of the case and the parties’ resources, it’s important to resolve the issue, the expense/burden likely doesn’t outweigh the benefit, and the other party is unlikely to have access to that information on their own.

Question 40

McPeek

Answer 40

Topic: Discovery - Scope and Burden

Relevant FRCP: 26(b)(2)(c), 26(b)(1) and 34(a) (documents include data complications from which information can be obtained

Facts: Sexual harassment claim, filed a rule 34 motion to get data from backup take, DOJ said it would be a big costs and the evidence might not be there, court ordered a test run to see how fruitful it was.

Rule: 26(b)(2)(c) - the discovery sought was unreasonably cumulative and burdensome. 26(b)(1) - the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Question 41

Upjohn

Answer 41

Topic: Discovery - Privileges

Relevant FRCP: 26(b)(3) (attorney work product) and 26(b)(5) (claiming attorney work product and privilege)

Facts: Company found out overseas subsidiaries were bribing people, counsel sent out a survey, employees filled it out admitting to the bribes, company reported it to the U.S., then the I.R.S. wanted the questionnaire, counsel claimed privilege with 26(b)(5) and the IRS said not because privilege does not extend to communications with lower level employees.

Rule: Rejected the control group test - privilege for companies CAN extend to lower level employees because legal needs them to talk freely to give proper legal advice to upper management. Note ** the company lawyers can claim privilege but the employees can’t and the company can throw them under the bus if they want.

Question 42

Adickes

Answer 42

Topic: Summary Judgement

Relevant FRCP: 56

Facts: Teacher and students, civil rights demonstration, refused service, arrested after, Adickes alleged collusion, business moved for summary judgement because she did not have proof that they colluded. Court ruled no because they didn’t have conclusory proof that they did not collude.

Rule: You need conclusory proof that the other claim is false - not the current standard. Modified by Celotex.

Question 43

Celotex

Answer 43

Topic: Summary Judgement

Relevant FRCP: 56

Facts: Husband died of asbestos issues, wife brought suit against company, could not show that Celotex was the cause and they moved for summary judgment, it was granted.

Rule: Modifies Adickes. Moving party must (1) reverence the discovery record, (2) show how it supports their contention, and (3) are not required to show conclusory proof that the other party is false.

Question 44

Bias

Answer 44

Topic: Summary Judgment

Relevant Rue of FRCP: 56

Facts: NBA draft pick, cocaine overdose, parents, life insurance, court granted summary judgement for the life insurance company, court of appeals reversed.

Rule: Specific Evidence> General Claims when moving for summary judgment. If you can’t rebut the specific evidence, it will be accepted.

Question 45

Beacon Theaters

Answer 45

Topic: Right to a Jury Trial

Relevant Rule of FRCP: 50 (Judgement as a Matter of Law) also 7th Amendment

Facts: Two theaters, one claiming exclusive rights to show the first run of movies, the other claiming that’s anticompetitive behavior, legal and equitable claims. The court decided the equitable claim first, the supreme court reversed.

Rule: If there are both legal claims and equitable claims, the legal claims should be tried before the equitable claims are decided unless there are dire circumstances.

Question 46

Dairy Queen

Answer 46

Topic: Right to a Jury Trial

Relevant FCRP: 50 (Judgment as a matter of law) and 51(jury instructions) and 7th Amendment

Facts: Franchise licensing trademark disagreement, opposing party send list of claims includine an amount of money owed, DQ wanted a jury trial, the language in the claim was more equitable and said they didn’t have to do a jury trial.

Rule: If there is a legal issue, then there is a right to a jury trial about it. You can’t turn something from a legal issue to an equitable issue just through language.

Question 47

Galloway

Answer 47

Topic: Post Trial Motions

Relevant FRCP: 50 (Judgment as a Matter of Law)

Facts: Guy served in the military, became legally insane, wife suing stating that he became insane when he had war insurance, court gave directed verdict to U.S., wife said it violated her 7th amendment right to a jury trial, supreme court said no.

Rule: If insufficient evidence is offered in support of a claim, the directed verdict does not violate the 7th amendment right to a jury trial.

Question 48

Abern

Answer 48

Topic: Post Trial Motions

Relevant FRCP: 59 (Motion for New Trial) - 60 (Relief for Judgment or Order)

Facts: Dispute of music contract, didn’t like outcome, tc judge denied new trial, sc judge affirmed.

Rule: 59(a)(1) says that a new trial can be granted after a jury trial is there is a valid reason for a new trial under federal law.

Torres-Troche court interpretation of a valid reason:
A new trial should only be granted when he verdict is against the clear weight of evidence, based upon false evidence, or will result in a miscarriage of justice. (Also jury instructions)

Question 49

Hansberry

Answer 49

Topic: Class Actions

Relevant FRCP: 23(a)(4) [kinda] and the 14th amendment

Facts: Racially restricted covenant in Chicago, res judicata, supreme court said Hansberry was not bound by facts in a prior class action.

Rule: Res judicata can only bind an absent party when their interests were properly represented in prior litigation

Question 50

Walmart

Answer 50

Topic: Class Actions

Relevant FRCP: 23(a) and 23(b)

Facts: Three female Walmart employees, supreme court found the class certification was improper. Under 23(a) they did not all suffer the same injury and under 23(b)(2)

Rule: The commonality requirement under 23(a) requires them all to suffer the same injury. You also can’t ask for monetary damages under 23(b)(2) unless everyone in the class is getting the same amount.

Question 51

Fisher v. Forest

Answer 51

Topic: Discovery - Request for Production

FRCP: 34

Facts: All of the RFP were denied stating only 2 general objections

Rule: You can not just deny a Rule 34 request. Rule 34(b)(2)(C) governs objections to. Must state which responsive materials are being withheld and why with specificity

Question 52

Goodyear

Answer 52

Topic: Personal Jurisdiction - General