Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Civil Procedure > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Shady Grove

A

Erie - example of federal rule on point (rule 23)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Piper aircraft

A

SMJ - forum non conveiniens - P cannot be left without forum to sue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Mitchell

A

Opportunity to be heard - sequestration is constitutional. Risk of wrongful deprivation was minimized by the vendor’s interest in preventing waste of property.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Osborn

A

SMJ - federal question - “federal ingredient” “arising under”overturned by Mottley

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

strawbridge

A

SMJ - complete diversity no P and D can be from same state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Twombly

A

Pleading - overturns Conley. Federal Rule 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Mas V. Perry

A

SMJ - diversity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Hanna

A

Erie - 2 prongs of Hanna, twin aims of Erie

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Taylor v. Sturgell

A

binding non-parties- SC rejects virtual representation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Guaranty Trust

A

Erie - outcome determinative test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Adickes

A

Summary judgment.- 12(b)(6) requires more facts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Goodyear

A

PJ -“defendant must be so fundamentally at home in the forum state that the relatedness b/t the contacts and cause of action is irrelevant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Rush v. City of maple heights

A

Issue Preclusion - a single tort can be but the basis of one action. Plaintiff must allege all claims arising in an action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Fuentes

A

opportunity to be heard - replevin provision is unconstitutional, dignity and interests need to be protected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Dred Scott

A

SMJ- alienage jurisdiction - if alien/resident, deemed to be a citizen of the state they’re domiciled in

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Bernhard

A

non-mutual defensive collateral estoppel - determining the validity of res judicata (elements)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Dusenberry

A

Rule 4 - Due process doesn’t require heroic efforts. You don’t need to give better notice just because it’s available.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Ankerbrandt

A

SMJ - challenge to SMJ family law traditionally a state matter (domestic case)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Hanson

A

PJ -“Purposeful availment” benefits and protections of the forum state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Gilbert

A

SMJ - removal - public/private interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Gibbs

A

SMJ- supplemental jurisdiction CNOF “same transaction or occurrence”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Parklane Hoisery

A

non mutual offensive estoppel - increases the number of lawsuits a P will wait to see which claims succeed against diff def IN CASES WHERE A PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE EASILY JOINED A DEF OR WHERE THE DEF MAY BE UNFAIRLY PREJUDICED, A TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE USE OF OFFENSIVE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Exxon Mobile

A

SMJ - supplemental jurisdiction - class action, party leader met diversity but not all members did, class action under rule 23 is not barred by 1367(b)

24
Q

Gray

A

PJ- BINDING IN IL ONLY “long-arm statute” last place of action is where tort was committed

25
Q

celetox

A

summary judgement- 2 ways that a def moving for summary judgement can meet the “no genuine issue of fact” requirement in cases where the P bears the burden of proof at trial.

26
Q

Burnham

A

PJ- tag jurisdiction “tradition justifies the exercise of power”

27
Q

Conley

A

pleading factual impossibility test (Rule 8). overturned by Twombly

28
Q

AFA Tours

A

SMJ - diversity - court must give P opportunity to prove that the amount in controversy is met

29
Q

International shoe

A

PJ - systematic, continuous and sufficient contacts with forum

30
Q

McGee

A

PJ -“isolated and sporadic contact” “one contact with the forum can be sufficient when it’s highly relevant to the cause of action” “Sovereign state interest”

31
Q

Burger King

A

PJ - contact factor: relevant contact reflects purposeful availment. fairness factor: mere inconvenience isn’t enough to constitute unfairness, it would be unconstitutional to litigate in the forum ,then it’s unfair. contract

32
Q

Mottley

A

SMJ- federal question - “well-pleaded compliant” fed question must arise from P’s complaint and cause of action NOT as an affirmative defense or response to anticipated defense. Overturned Osborn

33
Q

McIntyre

A

PJ - “selling a product through a third-party is not sufficient to establish minimum contacts”

34
Q

Hess

A

PJ - maintained Pennoyer - “minimum contacts” “Systematic and continuous” and “relatedness”

35
Q

Gasperini

A

Erie - state v. federal shocks the conscience/higher bar and abuse of discretion

36
Q

Mullane

A

Rule 4 - challenges - no PJ over out of state beneficiaries and accuracy of notice

37
Q

Byrd

A

Erie - balancing state and federal interests

38
Q

Perkins

A

PJ - “continuous substantial relationship with forum”

39
Q

Shaffer

A

PJ - all assertion of jur. must be evaluated with international shoe and its progeny in mind (need minimum contacts for quasi-in-rem)

40
Q

Carnival Cruise

A

PJ - “forum selection clause” a def’s choice of forum is proper ex ante if the def has a special interest and the plaintiff benefits from it

41
Q

Swift v. Tyson

A

Erie - Federal General Common Law (said state common law did not have to be followed by fed ct)

42
Q

Iqbal

A

pleading - holds that Twombly applies to all cases (transubstantive) complaint must be plausible

43
Q

Klaxon

A

SMJ - transfer - fed court should turn to state choice of law that the transferor would apply. the transferee court should apply the state choice of law that the transferor court unless it was an improper venue.

44
Q

Goldberg

A

opportunity to be heard - where the stakes are so high there needs to be some process before deprivation (3 part test)

45
Q

Pennoyer

A

PJ - 4 traditional bases, notice by newspaper publication was insufficient

46
Q

Greene

A

Rule 4 - need constructive notice under the 14th Amendment

47
Q

Erie

A

overturned swift - RDA, court MUST follow “substantive state law”

48
Q

Hickman

A

Discovery - when reviewing scope of 26(b) is it relevant? is it privileged?

49
Q

Marshall v. Marshall

A

SMJ- challenge to SMJ - probate cases

50
Q

Dioguardi

A

pleading - burden of pleading determines who is required to introduce the issue into litigation

51
Q

Asahi

A

PJ - “mere awareness of the potential profit doesn’t suffice as a minimum contact” Purposeful direction

52
Q

Helicopteros

A

PJ - similar to Perkins - no PJ on the corp

53
Q

Bristol Meyers-Squibb

A

PJ - def had tons of contacts with CA (offices, employees, etc) but claim doesn’t arise in CA. Def’s contact MUST include the VERY product that hurt the plaintiff

54
Q

Worldwide Volkswagen

A

PJ -“purposeful availment in the forum create a reasonable anticipation that the def can be haled in to court in the forum.” sufficient interests of the plaintiff, def and state

55
Q

Hertz

A

SMJ - diversity “nerve center” is where the corp. is incorporated or headquartered.

56
Q

Lacks v. Lacks

A

SMJ a judgment rendered without SMJ is void

Civil Procedure (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions