Jurisdiction
International Shoe fixes the issues of Pennoyer in what way? Please explain your answer :)
Establishes general and specific jurisdiction:
General jurisdiction: Having so much connection with a state that one can be sued there on any claim whatsoever. This is the state where individuals are domiciled, and where corporations have either (a) their principal place of business or (b) are incorporated.
Specific jurisdiction: where defendants have only some relatively low threshold (minimum contacts/personal availment) of connection to the forum state, but the lawsuit arises out of those contacts.
What is the basic standard of summary judgment?
If there is a conflict between evidence that is material, the issue should go to the jury. Additionally, the judge should not be resolving conflicts of evidence, even if one side feels stronger than the other.
This case sets new precedent and rejects Swift v. Tyson, by explaining that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply substantive state and federal procedure law.
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
Amy, a citizen of Florida, files a diversity suit in federal court in FL against Olivia, a citizen of Nevada. The suit is based on a car accident that occurred between the parties while in Nevada three years ago. Nevada law has a statute of limitations of two years for personal injury claims. Florida law has a statute of limitations of four years for such claims. Assume there is no federal rule directly addressing statutes of limitations. Which statute of limitations should the federal court apply?
This would apply Erie. This test asks whether applying the state law would significantly affect the outcome of the case. In this case, applying Nevada's shorter statute of limitations could significantly affect the outcome by barring Plaintiff's claim if it is filed after two years but before four years.
If the state law is substantive, it should be applied. Given the significant impact on the outcome, the court would likely conclude that the Nevada statute of limitations is substantive and should be applied.
What is property?
A legally protected interest in stuff!
Domicile calls for these two things.
A physical presence and an intent to remain.
When should a new trial be granted?
Flawed procedure or a flawed verdict
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
4 justices say that the touchstone is purposeful availment; foreseeability is the wrong inquiry. Need something more than a stream of commerce. (Need advertisements or machinery built for NJ) - O'Connor Standard!
3 justices dissent - there should be jurisdiction. Whether you see it as purposeful availment or foreseeability, the stream of commerce is enough. Rolling back to Int'l Shoe - allowing manufacturers to not establish presence.
2 justices concur - claim this is a weird case and therefore they hold that there is no jurisdiction based on the facts that they have.
Ben from New York decides to move to Arizona and remain there. He packs up his household and rents a U-Haul. He also registers for his driver's license for Arizona while in New York. On the way to Arizona, Ben is involved in an accident with an Arizona resident and is hospitalized in Oklahoma. That same day, the Arizona resident files suit in Arizona state court for negligence. What is the result?
Ben has not yet established domicile in AZ, as he is not physically present. Therefore, this case can either be brought to federal court (assuming the amount in controversy has been met) or can be brought in OK (where the accident occurred). The AZ resident may also bring the case to Ben in NY as that is where he is domiciled at the moment.
However, since Ben is moving to AZ with an intent to remain there, he may opt to waive personal jurisdiction and allow the case to go forward there.
What is conversion?
The intentional taking of another person's property without their consent.
What are the three parts to the Calder test?
1. Defendant is alleged to have committed an intentional tort.
2. Plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm to he reputation in the forum state.
3. Specific activity can be shown by which the defendant's conduct was "expressly aimed" at the forum state and was "calculated to cause injury" there.
In what situations are sanctions under Rule 37 immediately available?
If a party completely fails to answer interrogatories.
If a party completely ignore document requests.
If a party does not show for their own depo.
This case involves a claim of a breach of contract (state law cause of action) with an anticipated defense (federal issue emerging). The US Supreme Court here holds that the phrase "arising under" must be viewed narrowly as federal law must be a part of the claim itself (federal claim on the face of a well pleaded complaint).
Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
Chris Evans, a renowned parkour athlete, suffered severe injuries during a national parkour competition hosted by the Parkour League of America (PLA). The accident occurred when Chris slipped on a ledge while attempting a challenging jump with his teammates (i.e. the Avengers). During the discovery phase, one of Chris's teammates revealed to the defense attorney that they had witnessed four other competitors slip on the same ledge during the competition. In response, Chris's legal team filed a Rule 36 Request for Admission, seeking confirmation from the PLA that these incidents had indeed taken place. What is the likely outcome of Chris's Rule 36 Request for Admission?
Likely, the PLA will not admit this. But analysis anyways:
Admitting the fact would eliminate the need for extensive proof at trial, saving time and resources, however it would undermine the PLA's defense that the ledge was safe and that Chris's injury was a freak accident. Additionally, an admission could expose the PLA to additional liability, such as punitive damages, if it can be shown that the PLA acted recklessly by not ensuring the ledge was safe.
On the other hand, even though one witness claims something does not mean it happened. The witness can be put up at trial and cross examined and the PLA could argue that the teammate's testimony is unreliable or exaggerated.
Nonetheless, the defense should not admit this.
If Atkinson were to tear up Citizen Hunter's lottery ticket, could Citizen Hunter sue Atkinson?
Yes, Citizen Hunter could sue for the interference in the present with a future entitlement.
Future interests = present interests
What are the four circumstances where a court who has supplemental jurisdiction still has a right to decline?
They can consider declining if the question of state law is:
1. Novel or complex
2. Substantially predominates over the claim(s) over which the district court has original jurisdiction.
3. If the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.
4. Other compelling reasons
What are the core elements of claim preclusion?
Both case 1 and case 2 must be brought by the same claimants against the same defendants (or those in privity with either).
Case 1 must end in a valid, final judgment that is on the merits.
Both case 1 and case 2 must be based upon the same claim.
This case establishes the work product rule in order to protect trial preparation by claiming that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a need for the interviews performed by the defendant's lawyers after a tugboat sank, as they could have performed their own interviews.
Hickman v. Taylor
Sam, a resident of FL, sues Emma, a resident of PA for an injury caused by Emma's negligent driving. Sam brings the suit to PA state court and seeks $100,000 in recovery. Is this removable to federal court?
No. While federal court has jurisdiction over the claim because there is complete diversity and the amount in controversy has been met, Emma is from the state where the suit is filed and thus the home state rule applies.
What is the most fundamental law in a Republic?
Justice...
What is the difference between transfer and forum non conveniens?
While both transfer and forum non conveniens are mechanisms to address venue issues in civil litigation, they have distinct differences:
Transfer - typically involves moving a case from one court to another within the same judicial system, such as between federal district courts.
Forum Non Conveniens - involves dismissing a case in one jurisdiction because another jurisdiction is a more convenient and appropriate forum.
What are the three ways to violate Rule 11?
Improper purpose - filing a pleading or motion for an improper purpose, such as harassment, delay, or increasing the cost of litigation.
Legal frivolousness - asserting claims, defenses, or legal contentions that are not warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law.
Factual frivolousness - making factual contentions that are not supported by evidence or are not likely to be supported by evidence after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
This case involves a young baseball player who is injured after a confrontation with the police. The trial court moved for summary judgment before the Supreme Court decides per curiam that summary judgment was inappropriate.
Tolan v. Cotton
The Supreme Court recognizes the genuine issues of material fact on the record and claims that the question is whether a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff if we view all of their evidence as true.
A company in CA uses a website to sell Ryan Reynolds paraphernalia to the world. A significant amount of their sales come from customers in FL. A FL resident, Becca, purchases one of the Ryan Reynolds Ugly Christmas Sweaters™. Unbeknownst to Becca, the sweater is defective and ultimately causes a severe allergic reaction that results in her hospitalization. As a result, Becca files suit in FL state court. According to the Zippo Sliding Scale Analysis, what type of website is pictured here? Additionally, determine whether Becca can bring suit in FL by using the Calder Effects Test. Assume that the company knew their product was defective.
Zippo - It is likely that the website is active, as Becca was able to purchase directly from the website. This would subject the company to personal jurisdiction in FL, especially because a significant portion of its sales and revenue come from FL residents.
Calder - Because the company knew their product was defective and was likely to be used by FL residents, as they were the majority of their customers, they knew the risk of harm and therefore could be subject to personal jurisdiction. If the company actively targets FL residents through specific marketing campaigns or advertisements, it could also strengthen the argument for personal jurisdiction.
I literally cannot come up with another question...so everyone say their favorite Atkinson moment!
:)