The Mixer Incorrects Flashcards
Commenting against your employer in public suit?
When a government employee contends that her rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment have been violated by her employer, the employee must show that she was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern. When a government employee is speaking pursuant to her official duties, the employee is generally not speaking as a citizen and the Free Speech Clause does not protect the employee from employer discipline. In determining whether a government employee is speaking pursuant to her official duties, the critical question is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties. Here, the prison doctor is a government employee. Although she was testifying regarding the fact that the prisoner did not receive the proper medication for his infection, she also made general statements about the healthcare system in prisons. In making these general statements, she was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern, even though the statements concerned information about prison conditions that was learned through her employment. Therefore, the statements for which the prison doctor was fired were not made within the scope of her official duties. Additionally, the First Amendment interest of the employee must be balanced against the interest of the state, as an employer, in effective and efficient management of its internal affairs. Here, the prison doctor’s interest in speaking freely about the overall problems with the prison healthcare system likely outweighs the interest of the state as an employer, as the doctor’s general statements are not likely to disrupt the state’s management of its affairs. Instead, the statements merely shed light on a relevant issue.
Service must be done by a non-party. Huh
Service of the complaint and summons may be made by any nonparty who is at least 18 years old. Consequently, service of process by the author, who is the plaintiff in this action, was improper. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while FRCP 4 generally requires that service on a corporation in the United States be effected by delivering the summons and complaint to an officer, managing agent, general agent, or agent appointed or authorized by law to receive process, this rule also permits that service of process may be made by following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.
Probation Hearing and suspended sentence…
An offender does not have an absolute constitutional right to counsel at a probation revocation hearing when an already-imposed sentence is executed as a result of the revocation of probation. Instead, an offender only has such a right if it is necessary for a fair trial. Accordingly, the individual did not have an absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while the right to a jury trial is keyed to whether the offense carries a punishment of imprisonment for more than six months, the right to counsel is not subject to this time period limitation. In general, a defendant’s right to counsel applies in any trial at which the defendant is sentenced to incarceration. However, a defendant does not have an absolute constitutional right to counsel at a probation revocation hearing.
Collateral Order Doctrine
Under the collateral-order doctrine, a court of appeals has discretion to hear and rule on a district court order if it (i) conclusively determines the disputed question, (ii) resolves an important issue that is completely separate from the merits of the action, and (iii) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Stupid question with a expat us citizen suing in diversity
When the cause of action is based on state common law rather than a federal question as is the case here, subject matter jurisdiction exists on the basis of diversity of citizenship when the plaintiff and the defendant are U.S. citizens as well as citizens of different states. Here, although the individual and the corporation are both U.S. citizens, and the corporation is a citizen of both State A where its principal headquarters is located and State B where it is incorporated, the individual is not a citizen of any U.S. state, but instead, having moved permanently to a foreign country, is domiciled in the foreign country. Therefore, there is no diversity of citizenship because the action is not between citizens of different States. Moreover, alienage jurisdiction is lacking because the individual is not an alien: the facts indicate that the individual has retained his U.S. citizenship. Consequently, subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.
Some other crazy fucking question involving original SCOTUS jx
hile the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction over, among other matters, a controversy involving a state as a party, Congress may grant concurrent original jurisdiction to lower federal courts. By statute, Congress has granted federal district courts concurrent original jurisdiction over all controversies over which the Constitution granted the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction, except for a controversy between two states. Since the district court properly determined that the current action was not a controversy between two states, the district court is not constitutionally required to dismiss this action.
Voluntarily dismissing a claim
. A party may voluntarily dismiss a cross-claim (or a counterclaim or third-party claim) without the approval of the court or the consent of the parties before a responsive pleading is served, or if there is no responsive pleading, before evidence is introduced at a hearing or trial. The service of a summary judgment motion by a co-party with respect to a cross-claim (or counterclaim or third-party claim) does not cut off a party’s ability to voluntarily dismiss the claim without court approval or the consent of the other parties. This occurs only after evidence is introduced at the court hearing on the motion.
Non-resident voting………
A restriction on the right to participate in the political process of a governmental unit to those who reside within its borders is typically upheld as justified on a rational basis. Nonresidents generally may be prohibited from voting.
Preemption type thing?
Because the Seventh Amendment provides for a right to a jury trial, federal law governs whether there is a right to a jury trial, even when the action is based on state law and the federal court’s jurisdiction is based on diversity. A party may specify the issues for which it is demanding a jury trial. Because the facts indicate that, under federal law, punitive damages are determined by the jury, the former employee can demand a jury trial with regard to the issue of punitive damages. Consequently, the court should deny the former employer’s motion to strike the jury trial demand
Authentication by voice
A voice can be identified by any person who has heard the voice at any time. Consequently, the fact that the woman was not aware of the speaker’s identity at the time she heard the statements does not prevent her from identifying the man as their speaker at trial.
Congress questions involving the military are very broad
The authority granted to Congress under the war power of Article I, Section 8, is very broad. Congress may take whatever action it deems necessary to provide for the national defense in both wartime and peacetime, including rent control of the civilian economy during wartime, and even during the post-war period.
Immunity statement can’t be used for impeachment. huh. who knew
Testimony given under a grant of immunity is considered coerced and involuntary. A defendant’s involuntary statement, such as a confession produced by coercion, cannot be used either substantively or for impeachment purposes. Consequently, the mayor’s statement made under the compulsion of the grant of immunity may not be used to impeach the mayor’s testimony at his trial for an offense that was the subject of the mayor’s grand jury testimony.
Parent company and minimum contacts
In the absence of evidence that a corporation is the alter ego or mere agent of another corporation, each corporation is a separate legal entity. The fact the one corporation owns a controlling interest in another corporation, as is the case with the holding company and the manufacturer, is not justification for a court to ignore the separate status of each corporation for purposes of determining whether the court has personal jurisdiction over each corporation.
Alien and diversity
Although generally the presence of an alien as a party in an action does not prevent the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship or alienage, a lawful resident alien who is domiciled in the same state as an opposing party serves to defeat alienage jurisdiction.
Class Actions and Supplemental Jx
In general, if any member of a putative class does not have a claim that meets the statutory jurisdictional amount, then the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met. If, however, at least one representative plaintiff in a putative class action has a claim that meets the statutory jurisdictional amount, other persons with claims that do not meet the jurisdictional amount can be made part of the class under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.
Still don’t understand supplemental jx at all
Although the court does not have diversity jurisdiction over the spouse’s claim because her claim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claim, which forms part of the same case or controversy as her husband’s claim. I
Out of state J in another state
Satisfaction of the minimum contacts test is generally required for a court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. However, once a court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant renders a judgment, that judgment is enforceable by a court in another state by seizure of the defendant’s property located in that state, even if the defendant does not have minimum contacts with the state.
Class action notice? don’t get
The court certified the class after applying the Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, common questions, typicality, and adequate representation) and then determining that the case fell within Rule 23(b)(1) as a “risk of prejudice” situation. Notice of a class action is not required in this situation, but only in a Rule 23(b)(3) situation.
Experts who won’t be at trial
While experts who may testify at trial must be disclosed as part of the mandatory expert disclosure, experts employed in anticipation of litigation who are not expected to be called as a witness at trial need not be identified, absent exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
That conlaw case with the illegitimate dad and citizenship
Although Congress has plenary power with regard to exclusion of aliens from the United States, Congress cannot use that power in a way that violates individual constitutional rights, particularly those of citizens. Because gender is a quasi-suspect classification, laws that discriminate against citizens on the basis of gender are unconstitutional unless they can withstand intermediate scrutiny. Because mere administrative efficiency is not an “important” government interest sufficient to justify that discrimination, the law is unconstitutional as to fathers.
Picketing an individual residence
Freedom of expression is not absolute. The government’s ability to regulate the time, place, and manner of speech varies with the forum in which the speech takes place. There is no right to focus picketing on a particular residence.
