Final Exam - Case Law Flashcards
Mathews Test
1) State interest
2) Private interest
3) Risk of error/cost of additional procedure
Used for due process concerns.
Conley Test
Standard for notice pleading - Rule 8 type of pleading (can be bare bones!) is sufficient notice to provide to defendants and comport with views of DP
Expresio Unius
If a rule doesn’t express it, it does not apply (think Rule 8 v. Rule 9)
United Coin Test
For good cause on default entry.
1) Intent to defend on the merits - meritorious defense.
2) Non-prejudicial to plaintiff.
3) Did the defendant purposely act wrongly - culpability.
Bose Test
If the same evidence is used for a claim and counterclaim, then the counterclaim is compulsory.
Res judicata
1) Could this claim have been raised in the prior action?
2) Did the parties have their day in court?
Taylor Exceptions
C- Consent
L- legal relationship (think property)
A-adequate representative
A-assumption of control of the litigation (think subrogation)
P-proxy
S-special statutory scheme preventing preclusion (e.g., probate)
Camacho Rule 19 Test
1) Necessity?
2) Feasibility of joinder? (is there SMJ)
3) Permissible to proceed without the party?
4) Is the party indispensable?
If no jdx and indispensable –> dismissal.
Stringfellow Doctrine
Concerns intervention
Allowance to let a party in on a limited basis; doesn’t make sense to let a party intervene unless there is sufficient interest in the whole / majority of the claim, not one part.
NRDC Intervenor Test
1) Is there a significantly protectable interest?
2) Would decision of the case practically impair the ability to protect the interest?
3) Is the party seeking to intervene already represented by another party in the litigation?
Adickes Standard for SJ
Movant has full burden of proof and burden of production
Currie Standard for SJ
Movant has full burden of proof and no burden of production (equivalent to trial burden)
Louis Standard for SJ
Used in practice.
Movant has full burden of proof and limited burden of production (50%).
1) Affirmative evidence negating an essential part of the claim
2) Review of the evidence in the record to show non-movant’s claim is not supported by the facts –> rule 56
SJ Trilogy (1986)
1) Celotex- lowered the burden of getting to SJ
2) Anderson- clarifies SJ use with sensitive topics, focusing on public policy issues and ensuring that there is justification to go to trial
3) Matsushita- plausibility of plaintiff’s case and the alternatives
Markman Test
Need for consistency of interpretation will move the factual review into the judge’s hands and out of the jury
Pennoyer Test
1) Domiciliary
2) In-state service
3) Consent
International Shoe
1) Minimum contacts (systematic and continuous)
2) FPSJ
a. Inconvenience to P
b. Inconvenience to D
c. State’s interest
d. Justice interest
“nerve center” of the defendant for MC
McGee
1) MC only
+FPSJ, but FPSJ does not need to be satisfied in order to get to PJdx (bc Brennan)
Beginning of the long-arm statutes
Stream of commerce
WWVW
1) MC - transactionally related minimum
2) Purposeful availment of the forum by the defendant
3) FPSJ
Issues of purposeful availment
1) Does not consider plaintiff
2) Regulatory mismatch between states
3) No comparison to available forums
Calder
1) Effects test (MC + defendant is liable where the effects are felt)
Asahi
1) MC - IIA, NOT law.
2) Due Process - IIB, controlling.
+Basically FPSJ
a. Burden on defendant
b. Interest of plaintiff
3. Forum state interest
4. Systematic efficiency
Trivialization of MC to focus on FPSJ – chattel jdx, commercial relations.
McIntyre
1) Minimum contacts (systematic and continuous) / purposeful availment
2) Disregard of FPSJ
Weird idea of general jdx in the U.S., but not in a particular forum.. plaintiff cannot recover
Burnham
Pennoyer redux - in-state service on an out of state resident
Shaffer (1977)
Int’l Shoe is displacing Pennoyer
Zippo Test
For internet jdx
1) the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state
2) the claim asserted against the defendant must arise out of those contacts
3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.
More specifically,
1) Active website v. passive website
2) intentional actions targeting the forum
3) express aim
4) cause of harm
Goodyear / Daimler AG Test
1) Is the defendant at home?
2) Are there MC - continuous and systematic contacts?
BMS test
1) MC + Due process for the state entities
2) FPSJ, mostly focusing on the state interest in not having California litigate its claims
Ford Test
WWVW redux
1) MC - transactionally related minimum - what did the plaintiff do?
2) Defendant purposeful availment
3) FPSJ
Also suggests return to Pennoyer
Mottley Test
- Also called the Holmes Test
- Four corners of the complaint - is the federal claim expressly there?
Merrell Dow Test / Implied Right of Action
1) Is the plaintiff part of a class for whose benefit the statute was passed?
2) Is there evidence of legislative intent to either create or not create a cause of action?
3) Would a federal cause of action further the underlying purpose of the law?
4) Is this typically the subject for state law?
Grable/Gunn Test / Federal Interest
1) Is the state claim resolution indispensable to the federal resolution?
2) Is the federal part of the claim substantial?
3) Is federal law balkanized?
4) Discretion/policy
Gibbs Test
1) Do the state and federal claims derive from the CNOF?
2) Are the federal issues substantial?
3) Do the federal issues predominate? (comprehensive scheme)
4) Is it one constitutional case?
5) Discretion
Erie Aims
1) Eliminate forum shopping
2) Eliminate inequitable distribution of law
York Test
Outcome-Determinative:
1) Would the result be substantially the same if it was tried in federal vs. state court?
Warren Test
- Rule on point? –> Does it conflict with state law? –> Is it within the scope of the REA?
Harlan Test
1) Twin aims of Erie
2) ex-post vs. ex-ante assessment of behavior
Gasperini Test
Outcome-Affective:
1) Is there a rule on point?
2) Is there conflict with state law?
3) Is the REA controlling?
