Take-Aways from Missed PQs Flashcards
Writs of mandamus
Used in exceptional cases to circumvent a final judgment.
If after reviewing the record the appellate court determines that an appeal would not be a sufficient means to correct the disclosure required by the district court and that the district court’s actions constitute a serious abuse of power that needs immediate rectification, then the appeals court should grant the writ of mandamus in this case.
100 Miles Exception
A federal court may have an additional “100 mile” bump for purposes of service of process only with regard to a party joined under Rule 14 or Rule 19, not the original defendant.
Long-Arm Statute
Federal courts must analyze personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state in which it is located.
Remittitur
The Seventh Amendment does not allow a federal court to disregard a jury’s damages finding and order remittitur. Instead, the court must offer plaintiff the choice between a new trial or the reduced award. A motion for remittitur accordingly must be paired with a motion for a new trial.
Remittitur- Choice of Law?
Under the Erie doctrine, a court is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting. Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the remittitur rules of the state in which they are situated. Therefore, the appropriate remittitur standard is “excessive” rather than “shocks the conscience.”
Class Action Suits
In class action suits, diversity jurisdiction is based ONLY on the diversity between the named plaintiffs and the named defendants.
Summary Judgment
A summary judgment decision is a decision on the merits; a decision about personal jurisdiction is not.
When determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact present (thus, disallowing SJ), look to the record of evidence AT THE TIME motion was filed. A submission of (new and kept) evidence to refute SJ will not support the court finding a dispute of material fact between parties.
Personal Jurisdiction
A court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant if she is present in the forum state when personally served with process.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
The court has federal question jurisdiction over a case that ”arises under” a treaty of the United States, even where diversity is missing
Collateral Estoppel
When all of the requirements for offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel have been met, there is no further fact-finding function for the jury to perform.
It does not matter that the initial fact-findings were made by a judge, rather than by a jury. A judge’s finding from a prior equitable action would bind the later litigation of the same issues.
Erroneous Verdict
Where a jury has entered an erroneous verdict due to its inconsistent determinations FRCP 49(b)(3) gives the court the choice among only three options: (1) to approve an appropriate judgment according to the answers, notwithstanding the verdict, (2) direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict, or (3) order a new trial.
Motions
Defenses that must be presented in the first pre-answer motion, or answer, or else they will be waived are: Personal Jurisdiction, Venue, Insufficient Process, and Insufficient Service of Process.
The defense of failure to join a party is not one is automatically waived and may be raised by a later motion
Collateral Order Doctrine (COD) Req’ts
There are three requirements: (1) the lower court must have conclusively determined the disputed question; (2) the issue must be separate from and collateral to the merits of the main issue of the case; and (3) the issue must be effectively unreviewable on an appeal from the final judgment.
COD Application
COD is meant to be used for extreme cases, and so far has only been applied to cases involving matters of immunity and double jeopardy.
COD is a narrow exception to the finality requirement for appeals. Typically only a final order is reviewable by the appellate ct, however under this doctrine a claim or issue may be immediately appealable if it is too important to wait.
Choice of Law - Real Property
Cases involving real property, if there is a conflict as to which state’s law should be applied, the forum court usually applies the choice of law rules of the situs (where the property is located). On collateral matters, the choice of law rules of the situs may apply the law of the state with the most significant interest in determining the issue (ex.property fraud case - where fraud occurred).
