cases cited by Q

Question 1

Hanna (Q1-Erie)

Answer 1

A court must ask whether application of the federal rule would cause
- forum shopping OR
- inequitable administration of the laws

If an affirmative answer can be made to either or both questions, the state law should be applied

Question 2

Shady Grove (Q1-Erie)

Answer 2

the plurality opinion concluded that any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that, on its face, dealt with procedural matters would be both
- constitutionally valid and
- consistent with the Rules Enabling Act (REA)

Question 3

Walker (Q1-Erie)

Answer 3

the Court set a clear mandate that when the Federal Rules could be applied in conjunction with state rules
= no inescapable conflict exists

Question 4

Byrd (Q1-Erie)

Answer 4

one must begin by by recognizing that the 7th Amendment does not guarantee
- a right to have one’s case tried to jury

Question 5

Perkins (Q2-PJ)

Answer 5

a corporation’s temporary HQ subjected it to general jurisdiction

Question 6

International Shoe (Q2-PJ)

Answer 6

The Court established the minimum-contacts concept
- In Shoe, a Missouri company tried to avoid jurisdiction in the forum state (Washington) by hiring local salesmen as independent contractors.
- The company limited their inventory to one shoe of a pair thereby making it necessary for a purchaser to place an order with the company’s HQ.
- The Court concluded that the company had purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state and could therefore not avoid jurisdiction in a state that it entered for purposes of doing business.

Question 7

McGee (Q2-PJ)

Answer 7

• TX insurance company made a re-insurance offer to a person living in CA.
• After accepting his premiums, it refused to pay his beneficiary the face value of the policy.
• The company argued that it had no other contacts with CA and that this was its only insured in that state.
  The Court held that after reaching into the state knowingly to establish a business relationship, the company could not thereafter deny its amenability to jurisdiction in that state

Question 8

Asahi (Q2-PJ)

Answer 8

• A foreign company was sued in CA
• Something about the burden the company encountered is important in this case **

Question 9

WWVW (Q2-PJ)

Answer 9

The Court held that the unilateral actions of the P were insufficient to expose the D to liability in a state in which
- it conducted no business
- had no sales, and
- maintained no facilities

Question 10

Grable (Q3-SMJ/FQJ)

Answer 10

• Federal courts have FQJ when one P’s claims is one created by fed law, usually fed statute
• In rare cases, a state-law cause of action can satisfy the Grable exception

The Grable exception requires that one element of that state cause of action depend on on the resolution of a disputed issue of federal law that is important in protecting the operations of an agency of the federal government.
- that importance cannot be satisfied by looking to the interests of the private parties seeking to use the exception AND
- the acceptance of FQJ must not cause an imbalance in the relationship of federal and state courts by opening the door to a flood of cases that would ordinarily be tried in state court

Question 11

Mottley (Q3-SMJ/FQJ)

Answer 11

The Court ruled that a fed court must determine jurisdiction by only looking at the plaintiff’s well-pleated complaint.
= A federal court cannot consider the P’s allegations that anticipate and seek to avoid a fed defense.
Anticipation of a defense established by the Supreme Court in order to assure a freedom protected by the Constitution is precisely what Mottley rejects as a basis for FQJ.

A well-pleaded complaint would not claim FQJ by anticipating a fed law defense