Case Outline 2020 PDF

Preview

Summary

Outline of the cases...

Description

Prejudgment Remedies Fuents v. Shevin PG 6 F: Xbox stoven stereo. Items were claimed before she received notice of a filing of replevin. R: Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard, and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.

Mitchell v. WT Grant PG 6 F: Issue of writ of sequestration for 3 items writ approved without informing M or giving him chance to defend his interests. R: Fue. Shev does not apply to a ST statute that requires a clear showing of the nature of the claim & the grounds relied upon for the issuance of the writ of sequestration.

N GA Finishing v. Di Chem PG 6 F: P sold goods to D but D did not pay the full balance and P filed suit to recover. R: Fuentes v. Shevin (1972) applies to a state statute that does not require more than a conclusory allegation for the issuance of the writ of garnishment.

Rule 11 Zuk v. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute PG 12-13 F: psychologist made lecture tried to copyright school kept using, attorney did bad copyright. Suit against attorney for rule 11 sanctions. R: Sanctions imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 are intended to deter future violators, rather than to compensate the opposing party.

Personal Jurisdiction International Shoe Int. Shoe v. Washington PG 15 F: shoe co that have operate a store but just sellers R: Due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. look up standard test on page 15

McGee v. International Life Ins PG 15 F: someone died and P sued in CA to avoid international life insurance payments R: A state court has jurisdiction over an out-ofstate company if the company has substantial connections with the state.

PJ in State & Fed Court WWV v. Woodson PG 16 F: NY family moved to AZ and when driving through OK got hit by a car which caused a fire that severely burned wife. R: Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state.

Minimum Contacts Calder v. Jones PG 16-17 F: Shirley Jones lived in Cali negative article was published there as well but was created somewhere else. R: PJ is proper over a d where the d has certain min contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Burger King v. Rudzewicz PG 17 F: BK is Florida Corp. BK sues Michigan in Florida. D contends they can't be sued there. R: For D to satisfy the min contacts requirement for pj, the court must look to the purposefully directed activities of D toward the forum state & if harms arising out/relating to those activities are the cause of

McIntyre v. NIcastro PG 17 F: in injured by M in NJ. Ann Susan state court for product liability. M objects to jurisdiction since they don't advertise or sell goods in that state. R: D must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its

the litigation.

laws.

Everywhere & Nowhere Shaffer v. Heitner PG 18 F: Greyhound antitrust case R: Quasi in rem j may only be asserted when the interests of the persons in the property seized have sufficient contacts, ties, or relations to the state.

Zippo v. Zippo Dot Com PG 18 F: sued for copyrights R: To assert pj over a nonres D the court must apply a 3 step test to ensure 1. D has min contacts with the forum state 2. the claim asserted arises out of those contacts 3. the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.

Burnham v. Superior Court PG 18 F: divorce both parties from NJ wife moved he went to visit the kids there and was served. R: A non-resident is properly served if he is physically present in the forum state, and the forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over him without violating due process. Mayo v. Satan PG 18 F: Case against the devil R: The federal government does not have jurisdiction over the devil

Specific v. General Jurisdiction Goodyear v. Brown PG 18-19 F: families of dead kids sued GY for crash in Paris on theory that GY makes tires all over the world but the defect tire was sold in US. Brings D to state court “stream of Commerce theory” R: A state court may not exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign subsidiary of a United States-based corporation unless it engages in such continuous and systematic activities as to render it essentially at home in the forum state.

Daimler AG v. Bauman PG 19 F: For in plaintiff sued Mercedes in fed court alleging that D Argentine violated the ATCA by contributing to the deaths of MB employees during The Dirty war. R: A court can assert general jurisdiction over a corporation if the corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation at home in the state.

Venue, Notice & Service of Process Mullane v. Central Bank PG 19 F: banksa in accounting that the handling of the trustee of beneficiary counselors proper. Published a cryptic ad in the newspaper 4 times R: Notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.

Bates v. C. & S. PG 20 F: P seud D debt collection for violations of the Fed statute in his new home in western district of NY but the debt was incurd in the western district of Pennsylvania R: In an action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, venue exists in a district in which the debtor resides and to which a collection agency’s demand for payment was forwarded.

Kadic v. Karadzic PG 20 F: UN zone a foreign leaders can go there and cannot get arrested. (effective service a process to jump into the elevator & toss papers ) R: United Nations invitee is personally served with a summons and complaint while within a federal court’s district but outside of the U.N. headquarters district, he is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the district court.

Diversity Citizenship Mas v. Perry PG 20-21 F: Interracial couple dealing with a creepy landlord. D wants to keep couple in federal court. R: A party is domiciled in the state where her true, fixed, and permanent home is located.

Federal Question & Supplemental Jurisdiction Louisvil & Nashvil v. Mottley PG 21 F: motleys injured in train crash in sought to enforce a contract with the RR for free train tickets R: For a suit to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, giving a federal court jurisdiction to hear the case, a plaintiff must allege a cause of action based upon those laws or that Constitution.

Gunn v. Minton PG 21 F: M brought state law malpractice claim against former lawyers for failing to file patent correctly R: A state court’s resolution of a hypothetical question of patent law is not substantial enough to mandate federal review.

United Mine v. Gibbs PG 21 F: G sued UMW in fed court under fed act in the Tennessee tort claim for violent activity. R: A fed court can exercise pendent j over st and fed claims if the fed and st claims are the type that would be expected to be heard at a single hearing and are “derived from a common nucleus of operative fact.”

Owen & Erection v. Kroger PG 22 F: Kroger from Iowa sued Omaha power in Iowa Omaha power impleaded Owen who is also from Iowa Kroger brings separate claims versus Owen. R: In an action in which f jurisdiction is based on diversity, the court may not exercise j over the p’s claim against a 3-party defendant if there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim.

Exxon-Mobil v. Allapattah PG 22 F: SK: girl claims she had 75 K in damages but family didn't. ALP: EM dealers form class action sued D claiming they were each damaged by price fixing. 10K. R: Where other elements of dj are present & at least 1 named P satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, the court may exercise jurisdiction over other P who might otherwise be properly joined but who do not allege damages which reach the jurisdictional amount.

Forum Non Conveniens Piper Aircraft v. Reyno PG 23-24 F: Victims are forum shopping to US Corp, no connection to Cali, removed from Cali to fed court transfer to home court in Pennsylvania. D tries to dismiss for forum non convenience. Pleads to send back to Scotland. Judge Marshall ruled anti plaintiff because non-American and are form shopping. R: A P may not defeat a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the P than that of the present forum.

State Law in Federal Courts The Rule Swift v. Tyson PG 24 F: P sued in federal court wanting to apply New York law. R: The Rule of

Erie RR v. Tompkins PG 24 F: T was walking along the tracks of a train and ended up being injured Susan New York even no injury was in Pennsylvania.

Guaranty Trust v. York PG 24 F: GT was trustee when the company became part owner conducting a stock swap. York sued claiming breach of trust for failure to protect noteholders

Decision Act does not bind federal courts to state common law.

R: A federal court sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law, whether statutory or common law.

R: A fed court, exercising jurisdiction based strictly on diversity of citshp, must abide by any ST legal rule that would be determinative if held in state court.

The Exception Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Co. PG 25 F: P was injured on the job D benefited from state statue immunity from suit. R: The federal policy of having the jury answer questions of fact prevails over state rules that would interrupt the judge-jury relationship in federal court.

Hanna v. Plumer PG 25 F: Pits Massachusetts law against the federal rules enabling act in Rule 4D1 R: Scotus rules that if a claim is procedural and invokes federal procedures, state common law may not control

Plaintiff’s Complaint Gillespie v. Goodyear Service Stores PG 8 F: crazy old white lady mad at the black workers that came to her property. Wants to file a complaint to go arrest them. R: Rule 8A &D- a complaint must contain plain and concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action.

Contemporary Pleading Standards Swierkiewicz v. Sorema PG 9 F: similar to Conley- the workplace environment is discriminating against a worker and replaced a worker to be more like the collective. R: Applying the reasonable standard, petitioners complaint easily satisfies the requirements of rule 8A because it gives respondent fair notice of the basis for petitioners claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal PG 10 F: Muslim that was arrested and had constitutional rights violated by the director of FBI based on his religion and origin. R: Extends plausibility standard to civil rights case is and says Iqbal is too conclusory in their claims.

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly PG 9 F: BA is being broken up by gov order to create less of a monopoly. R: Changes from conceivable to plausible and gets rid of the Conley rule.

Leslie Gordan- Cultivated in Court PG 10 F: Post Iqbal federal civil litigation requires the Goldilocks image R: Capital P politics- conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat. Small P politics: refers to things knowing who the biggest employers are in town, anticipating the economic interest of jury judges or local political interests

Defendant’s Answers King Vision Pay Per View v. J.C. Dimitri’s PG 11 F: judge S not happy with defendants for their failure to comply with 8B instead of admitting or stating they lack knowledge or info sufficient to form a belief. (once strict proof) R: rule 8B

State Farm v. Riley PG 11 F: ? R: rule 8B- uses the opinions highlight the ways in which defendant can admit, deny, or lack of information rubric of 8B. (1. Demanding strict proof 2. by refusing to use the words belief or knowledge 3.by insisting the document speaks for itself 4. by refusing to answer the complaint

because “states illegal conclusion. Unforgivable mistake according to judge Shadur.)

Early Adjudication of Defenses Brain Wassom “Little Green Men” F: R:

Amendation and Counterclaims Wigglesworth v. Teamsters PG 13 F: P was denied membership to the union an accused the union of being ran by the mafia . D file a counterclaim saying the plaintiff misused the law for vindictive purposes. R: rule 13A1A- A compulsory counterclaim is one that is ancillary to the original claim and thus requires no independent basis of federal jurisdiction.

Admissive and Required Joinder of Claims & Parties Kedra v. City of Philadelphia PG 13 F: KSU city of Phil and seeks to join agencies as defendants under rule 20 for the claim of harassment of family members R: Adopts plaintiff friendly approach to adjudicating civil rights claims. rule 20 (hot girl at a party)

Insolia v. Phillip Morris, Inc. PG 14 F: Three former smokers Sue cigarette manufacturer. Defendants moved to sever claims because they claim they've been improperly joined. R: Claims of multiple parties will be combined if the claims assert a right to relief jointly or with respect to the same transaction or occurrence and any issue of law or fact common to all plaintiffs or defendants will arise in the action.

Compulsory Joinder, Third Party Practice & Cross Claims Camacho v. Major League PG 14 F: Player for Mexican team had no contacts with them so he couldn't play for the Red Sox. R: Rule 19 1. is the absent party necessary 2. period if so is it feasible to order that absent party to be joined. 3. If not feasible can the case proceed without absent party?

Clark v. Associates PG 14 F: Repo man beats up Clark. R: Under the practice of impleader, a defendant may add a third-party defendant if that third-party is or may be liable to the original defendant for the plaintiff’s claim....