This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1. General Notes
Civil Procedure - September 04, 2008
← ← ← ← • • • • • •
Pennoyer v. Neff Issue: Personal Jurisdiction When the word appears alone usually means subject matter jurisdiction Sometimes can institute the word power for jurisdiction John Mitchell sued Neff for attorney fees because Neff hired him to file some title docs on land When Neff did not pay Mitchell sued for breach of contract Neff did not get notice as he did not live there Background: Mitchell got judgment with writ of attachment o Writ is an order (summons, injunctions)
• • • • • • •
Pennoyer bought land and was very settled for some time Neff came and wanted land back Second lawsuit is Neff suing Pennoyer for title of the land Pennoyer bought land from sherrif sale but Neff is claiming judgment and sale was bad because did not have juridiction due to lack of notice. KEY ISSUE: Personal Jurisdiction Amenability (subject to be served) o Responsible; subject to answer in a court of justice liable to punishment Notice (served) o They have to actually get notice o In rare cases can do publication notice if cannot reach the person o Subject to jurisdiction once given notice Decision: SC states that Neff must be in the forum state to get notice o Have to be served personally (usually handed, threw and hit in head) o THIS CASE WAS A IMPERSONUM JURISDICTION and therefore did not get notice and no jurisdiction Once the judgment is enforceable (ex. 10,000) everywhere in United States (due to full faith and credit) Impersonum Jurisdiction Sue for personal issue Courts jurisdiction over a particular person Requires in person notice
• ← ← • • • •
• • • • •
Judgment good everywhere! Corporation could serve an agent In rem True in rem case have to give notice to everyone usually about property not people Name of the property not the people Jurisdiction in rem (Latin, power about or against "the thing") is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property Judgment good in forum state only Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction A quasi in rem action is commonly used when jurisdiction over the defendant is unobtainable due to his/her absence from the state. Any judgment will affect only the property seized, as in personam jurisdiction is unobtainable. Personal lawsuit usually contract issues or torts Judgment good in forum state only
← ← This case is key because with 14th Amendment passed the three previous jurisdiction rules were common law widely spread and rule broken all of the time. SC decided to tie it to the 14th amendment to apply it to all of the states. ← • 14th Amendment is just a limit that the state cannot exceed, however always have to look to state statutes for jurisdiction… power comes from state ← ← NOTES: • Blackmer v. US …SC upholds Pennoyer o Blackmer creates exception states that US citizen that does not reside in US can be sued here does not matter so long as you given notice. • Miliken v. Meyer o State has power to subject its own citizens to jurisdiction o Cannot to non citizens unless served in forum state (d/n have to live there) ←
← • • • • • •
Hess v. Pawloski Car wreck in MA between PA person and MA person Implied Consent: states can write a law that states when you do this you have implied consent Take summons and serve it in registrars of motors…sent to PA… official in PA sends in by mail to persons address then person has notice ISSUE: IS THIS OK??? SC stated yes this is ok!!! Hess upholds Pennoyer International Shoe v. Washington
← ← ←
← • • ← • •
Washington State Law o You can be served notice by certified mail Due Process o Hand it to them in the state (Pennoyer) o Issue: (1) whether, within the limitations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, appellant, a Delaware corporation, has by its activities in the State of Washington rendered itself amenable to proceedings in the courts of that state to recover unpaid contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund exacted by state statutes, Washington Unemployment Compensation Act, Washington Revised Statutes, s 9998-103a through s 9998-123a, 1941 Supp., and (2) whether the state can exact those contributions consistently with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Background: Int’l show trying to get out of paying unemployment benefits Has people in other states taking orders claims that since taking no orders or no site in Washington do not have to pay Rule: Presence since corp is a fiction can only be from action so f it s agents to satisy due process. Court applies IMpliecent ocndent from its presence in the state to the states laws
. Denckla ← ← ← • • • • • • Old lady money trust in Delaware Moved to Florida and changed will cut off couple of daughters Daughters want the trust after she dies Question goes to Supreme Court to decide minimum contacts.• • The court overrules Pennoyer but not entirely …overrules the impersona portion of the case and gives us new test Minimum Contacts: o Such that Systematic and continuous Obligation arose out of D’s activity in forum state Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Perkins v..everything was there except for the mine o Applied continious and systematic contacts o Substantial presence in a state even though not a citizen and event did not happen there subject to jurisidiction o Have to have a lot of contacts o Non residents of texas really from New York and something happens in New York can they be sued here Hansen v. Mining (1952): ← ← ← • General Jurisdiction: TEST: Continous and Systematic COntacts o What Ohio had over Benget Mining.bank person in Delw claiming that Fl court does not have juridisdiction Court found that he did not have contacts to Florida NOT SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION BECASE HE DID NOT: .
. dismissed both the complaint and the cross-claim and the plintiff appealed.. American Radiator Illinois State Law o Operation of a Long Arm Statute o Suit by an Illinois resident for injuries sustained when a water heater allegedly exploded. To manufacture and knowledge that it is being used elsewhere court states that is enough (OK under Ill law) .. J. that driver from RI in Mass drove in Mass and assumed the laws and benefits of that state Specific Jurisdiction: o First case test is Hansen o Purposefully availed himself to the benefits and protections of Florida law o Mcgee case states you need just one contact o Test for contacts is qualitative and not quantitative o Non residents whom did something in the forum to give lawsuit o TEST: STREAM OF COMMERCE o Foreseeablity o Reasonable anticipation of being haled into court At this time Due Process is International Shoe ← ← ← ← • ← • Gray v. held that the foreign corporation. o Rule: Court comes up with term “STREAM OF COMMERCE” o If a defendant places their product in St. of Comm. J.• • o Purposefully availed himself to the benefits and protections of Florida law Purposeful Availment: o Ex. was subject to the jurisdiction of the Illinois court after service of summons was made upon its registered agent in Ohio. moved for dismissal of the complaint and the cross-claim filed against it. Cook County. The Circuit Court. Allen Ashcraft. which manufactured in Ohio a safety value incorporated in Pennsylvania in the hot water heater which was sold to a consumer in Illinois. The Supreme Court. wherein one defendant. a foreign corporation. Klingbiel.
who carried on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma and availed themselves of no privileges or benefits of Oklahoma law. (Illinois) 1) Power of that state to enter judgment depends on: • whether party has minimum contact with the State • nd reasonable method of notification Court finds that volume of business is not the method of defining “minimum contacts” • Instead use the work act has SUBSTNTIAL connection with the State of forum ← ← ← • ← • Case is maybe Specific Jurisdiction o TWO OTHER TESTS: Forseeability Reasonable Anticipation Volkswagen Corp v.apeal during the case filed in the supreme court of the state to make the judge change his ruling. automobile wholesaler and retailer. Woodson (1980) Mandamous Case: like an appeal. The following year they left NY for a new home in AZ.. purchases a new Audi from Pet. defendant suing trail judge. ← ← ← Relevant Facts: Resp. As they passed through OK another car struck their Audi in the rear.. Seaway Volkswagon in NY. ← ← Legal Issue(s): Whether corporate Dfs. causing a fire which severely burned Resp’s wife and two children.o Due Process: Stream of Commerce no contacts but place it in the stream Court found that in law the place of a wrong is wher eth elast event take place which renders the actor liable. mere fortuitous circumstance that a single automobile sold in New York to New York residents happened to suffer an accident while passing through Oklahoma constituted "minimum contacts" with Oklahoma so as to permit Oklahoma courts to exercise jurisdiction consistently with due process? ← • .
Pet have no contact. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of Ok law. Pets appealed.← Court’s Holding: No ← ← Procedure: Tr ct ruling for Resp. salesmen. They close no sales and perform no service there. They solicit no business there either through salespersons or advertising. there. ← ← Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner does not do business in OK. Ok S. It is foreseeable that autos sold by WWV and Seaway may take them to OK. or retail offices. or relations w/ the State of OK. Pet does not have any contact with OK at all. State court may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between defendant and forum state. P. has no sales. ← ← Court Rationale: The record has a total absence of those affiliating circumstances that are a necessary predicate to any exercise of state-court jurisdiction. Ct denied appeal by Pet. Financial benefits accruing from collateral relations will not support jurisdiction if they do not stem fro a Constitutionally cognizable contact w/ the State. If the sale of a product is not simply an isolated occurrence. Petitioners carry on no activity in OK whatsoever. ← . Foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the D. OK. ← ← Respondent’s Argument: The mobility of the auto with the nature of the Pet’s business creates a situation where it is foreseeable that the product would enter the stream of commerce. But foreseeability applies to a dfs conduct and connection w/ the forum State such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into ct. but the mere unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship w/ a nonresident df cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state. Reversed ← ← Law or Rule(s): Due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment limits power of state court to render valid personal judgment against nonresident defendant. it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury. agents. ties.
The Pl were hospitalized in OK when they brought suit.” ← ← Sub-Notes on Rule: ← ← A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State. . The accident occurred in OK. Each sold the auto which in fact was driven in OK where it was involved in an accident. and the trial can proceed at least as efficiently in OK as anywhere else. ties. It is not that the dealer foresees that they will move." The Due Process Clause "does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts. but the dealer actually intends that the purchasers will use the automobiles to travel to distant States where the dealer does not directly “do business." ← ← Test from VW Case ← ← Specific Jurisdiction: (minimum contacts test) • Activity in forum gives rise to the action o Foreseeability – great for tort case Foresee harm or injury in forum state o Purposefully availing – great for contract cases o Reasonable anticipation of being hailed into court – great for tort case o Stream of commerce – passive defendant whom did nothing in forum state (narrow products liability) ← ← ← ← ← Burger King Corp. or relations. The defendant's contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.← DISSENT: The interest of the forum State and its connection to the litigation is strong. The petitioners are not unconnected with the forum state. Ruzewicz ← ← Facts ← . v. and the relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is "reasonable . Essential witnesses and evidence were in OK. to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there. . The State has a legitimate interest in enforcing its laws designed to keep its highway system safe.
← Two Michigan residents (John Rudzewicz and Brian MacShara. Burger King then appealed to the Supreme Court. Rudzewicz could not have anticipated being summoned into court in Florida. ← ← NOTES: • Court found that he purposefully availed himself to Fl law. prompting the Florida-based corporation to file a lawsuit in Florida for breach of contract and tortious infringement of Burger King's trademarks and servicemarks through the defendants' unauthorized operation as a Burger King restaurant after the defendants received notice to vacate the premises. Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Rudzewicz had never been to Florida and had no business established in Florida. One of the defendants also attended training courses at regional Burger King University locations and in the Florida headquarters on how to run a Burger King franchise. the defendants) entered into an agreement with Burger King to run a franchise. The defendants were unable to make their monthly payments to Burger King. to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants would be fundamentally unfair and thus violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ← ←  Holding ← ← The Supreme Court concluded that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the protections of the forum state (Florida) and were. therefore. ← ←  Dissent ← ← In dissent. and it violates the due process clause to require a small businessman in Michigan to have to make an appearance in a court in Florida to present his defense. The two defendants would pay their franchise fees and royalties to Burger King's Florida headquarters. . The Court reasoned that the defendants had a "substantial and continuing" relationship with Burger King in Florida and that due process would not be violated because the defendants should have reasonably anticipated being summoned into court in Florida for breach of contract. subject to jurisdiction there. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court's decision finding that even though the defendants had minimum contacts with Florida. ← ←  Procedure ← ← The District Court held that Florida had jurisdiction because of a statute that allowed the state to extend jurisdiction to anyone breaching a contract within the state.
• • • o Because of the terms of the contract signed o Agreed to choice of law clause We agree to be governed by Fl law when get in lawsuit going to apply FL law wherever we get sued. 5) Judicial Systems Interest if all other factors are equal lets pick a fair site and not burden the overall system. Difference between choice of law and choice of forum clause • Forum clause sets the forum in which the lawsuit will occur. o IF GIVEN LAWSUIT WHERE WOULD BE THE FIRST PLACE TO LOOK: Traditional Bases: Resident of the forum state Consent • Express – choice of forum clase • Implied (Hess v. • Two kinds of forum clause o Mandatory choice of forum o Discretionary clause that parties agree that lawsuit MAYBE in Florida but not the only place. 2) Plaintiff’s Interest convient and effective relief. if tied usually go with plaintiff 3) Interest of forum state Legislative branch helps determine public policy. Court found that choice of law is relevant and by entering the contract and has FL choice of law clause you have purposefully availed yourself of the FL law. Significantly different. best evidence of state interest is Florida statutes..better for FL courts to apply FL law 4) Other states’ interest if FL has laws out of the mainstream could be a reason if can show all of these other states that differ from FL law. ability to subpoena witnesses’. Stream of Commerce did not apply FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TEST o Factors: (balancing test) 1) Burden on defendant economic. Poloski drive into state) . same type of burden as above. physical evidence location.
Circuit Judge. Wyatt H. Harris County. J. were insufficient to satisfy requirements of due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and hence to allow Texas court to assert in personam jurisdiction over corporation in wrongful death action.W. Hall ← ← Wrongful death action was instituted in a Texas state court against a Colombian corporation and others. Caddy ← ← Background: Operator of “Pebble Beach” golf resort brought trademark infringement and trademark dilution action against operator of a British bed and breakfast. held that: . The Texas Supreme Court. v. Corporation appealed. J. 616 S. The Supreme Court. granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. acceptance of checks drawn on Texas bank. ← ← ← Pebble Beach CO. Heard. Trott. ← ← ← Holdings: The Court of Appeals. ← • • ← Waiver. ← ← Texas Supreme Court judgment reversed. 638 S. Justice Blackmun. and plaintiff appealed. Hamilton. and plaintiffs appealed. reversed.. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals.2d 247. held that Colombian corporation's contacts with Texas. the District Court. Denying Colombian corporation's motion to dismiss actions for lack of in personam jurisdiction over it. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California. which consisted of one trip to Texas by corporation's chief executive officer for purpose of negotiating transportation services contract.W. entered judgment against corporation on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. Superior Court • ← ← Helioteros v. Certiorari was granted. reversed and dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction.when you fail to object in time Served personally in forum state If none of the these apply then you go to Minimum Contacts test o Asahi Metal v. ← ← Justice Brennan dissented and filed an opinion.2d 870. and purchases of helicopters and equipment from Texas manufacturer and related training trips.. Phyllis J.
and thus were insufficient to subject him to personal jurisdiction there.← (1) defendant's use of “Pebble Beach” in passive website advertising his services and in the website's domain name were not acts aimed at the state of California. consistent with the requirements of due process. ← • Personal jurisidiction o Caddy states no personal jurisidiction if the exercise of that juridiction does not violate federal due process • 3 Part Test: o D performed some act or some trasction within the forum or purposefully availed himself of the provilges in the forum o Claim arirses out of or result from defencets forum related activites o Exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable ← ← • Availment is actually two pronged: Purposeful Avaliment and/or Purposeful Direction ← ← Tyler v. or could reasonably expect. PERSONAL JURISDICTION . Court of Registration ← ← QUICKNOTES MINIMUM CONTACTS . whereby the court determines whether the defendant intentionally conducted activities in the forum and thus knows. ← ← Affirmed. and ← (2) defendant's acts were insufficient to subject him to personal jurisdiction under the federal long-arm rule.The minimum degree of contact necessary in order to sustain a cause of action within a particular forum.An element in determining whether a defendant had the required minimum contacts in a forum necessary in order for a court to exercise jurisdiction over the party. PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT . that such conduct could give rise to litigation in that forum.The court's authority over a person or parties to a law suit. The mere fact that you have a contact does not create jurisdiction you have to go to the second test .
. 2008 Have to make three good faith attempts and then get substitute service (get to name someone else employer.1. 2.September 11.2.1. Substituted Service 2.1. Actual Notice = bad service Ex.October 21.In Burger King they find a contact and what we get is a balancing As well as importance of the choice of law clause Civil Procedure . negihbor to give to person.2. . Matter Juris Ch 5: Venue Ch 6: What law applies 2. Notes Civil Procedure .1. 2008 Can service to a corp permitting the delivery of process to an officer or director of the corporation or agent of serving process.what if gave to neighbor but he never recieved it even though got substitute service it is good service but court will probably have new trial once he objects. 2008 Ch 2: Personal Jurisdiction Ch 3: Notice Ch 4: Sub. Service Of Process 2. Service On Corporations 2.September 11. Notes Civil Procedure .
(Godo thing saves money and time) THE MERE FACT THAT THEY RECIEVED THE WAIVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY GOT NOTICE.3.1.talks about Waiver.September 11.you send a copy of the suit and a waiver form. Request For Rule of Law Specific Applications of the Service Provisions.2. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Civil Procedure MD State Firemans Assoc v.Personal notice 2. ..service on sutitable age reisidng in same home Rule 4(e)(2)(b) Permits service process to be made upon an individual by leaving a copy of the summons and complait at his "dwelling or usual placce of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there. 2008 1. Civ. substituted service 4. Chaves 199 9/11/2008 7:33:39 PM Mechanics of Giving Notice Jurisdiction Over The Parties / Personal Jurisdiction / In Personam Jurisdiction/Federal Actions/Waiver Of Formal Service.. Chaves) Fed R. Notes Civil Procedure . 3.P. Waiver 4(d)2 3.u return this and you have effictvly waived service of process. no service but filed the suit. Mere receipt of a request for waiver of service does not give rise to any obligation to answer the lawsuit and does not provide a basis for default judgment. If you fail to return this we will send service person. 4(d)2 . Mechanics of Giving Notice 3. (Maryland State Firemen's Association v.
old common law method . service on people of foreign countries 4. Notes Civil Procedure .1.general process go to local court and get judge to sign writteen letter from your judge to that judge in that country and they will generall serve process 5. Notes Civil Procedure .1.September 11. Letters Rogatory . 2.. 4. will get sent through the correct channels to be served.she comes out and gives service (good service) Rule 4(e)(2)(b) Permits service process to be made upon an individual by leaving a copy of the summons and complait at his "dwelling or usual placce of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.(international court of justice) .. return of service 5.it is a means of complying with foreign law so you dont have to send your person across seas and possibly he get arrested. 2008 First thing could send a waiver 4(d)(2) Maybe they come tot he US from time to time you can serve them here mailed abroad might be good but the key thing the book states is: 1.September 11.Issue What was the problem of giving service? Facts Holding Notes Rule 4(e) Process server yells fire. 2008 . The Hauge Convention .
Ltd. (National Equipment Rental.. Weinberg was served. Szukhent) Issue ISSUE: Is a person. V. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure National Equip Rental v. Service of an Agent 6.. who is designated by a party to a private contract to act as agent to receive service of process who is unknown to the party and is not expressly required to transmit notice to the party. When National (P) commenced this action on the lease. and she mailed the summons to Szukhent (D).the did not even try and serve just threw it into the sewer but filed something with the court with return of service stating that it was served. Szukhent 9/11/2008 7:34:46 PM Service of an Agent Delivery to an Agent Authorized by Appointment. 6. A party to a private contract may appoint an agent to receive service of process where the agent is not personally known to the party and is not expressly required to transmit notice to the party but does promptly accept and transmit notice. Holding . The printed lease provided that Szukhent (D) designated Weinberg as agent to accept service of process in New York.1. Ruling was that you have to trust the thing in the record . an agent authorized by appointment? Facts FACT SUMMARY: Szukhent (D) leased farm equipment from National (P).
Here. to permit notice to be served by the opposing party. Ownership Of Property. Jurisdiction Based Upon Power over Property. Notes Civil Procedure . 2008 Shaffer v.September 09. Heitner) . Notes You can contract away your agent for service of process. in fact.1. Weinberg's prompt acceptance and transmittal to Szukhent (D) of the summons and complaint was sufficient to validate the agency even though there was no explicit requirement that she do so. 4(e)(2).1.DECISION: (Stewart. (Shaffer v. Based On 7. P. the purpose underlying the provision designating Weinberg was to assure that any litigation under the lease would be conducted in New York. the fact that Szukhent (D) did not know her is irrelevant. Here. R. Parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court. Heitner: 1. Jurisdiction Over The Parties / Personal Jurisdiction / In Personam Jurisdiction 7. prompt notice to Szukhent (D) having been given. Further. J. Hence. Weinberg was appointed Szukhent's (D) agent for the single purpose of receiving service of process. Weinberg was his agent authorized by appointment to receive process within the meaning of Fed.) Yes. An agent with such limited authority can in no meaningful sense be deemed to have an interest antagonistic to Szukhent (D). receive timely and complete notice. H OLDING AND 7. This case does not involve a due process problem since Szukhent (D) did. Civ. Jurisdiction cannot be founded on prop-erty within a state unless there are sufficient contacts within the meaning of the test developed in International Shoe. Reversed and remanded. or to waive notice altogether.1.
1.2. Federal Actions 7. Amenability To Suit 7.2. 4(d)2 .1. Chaves) Fed R. Limited by Due Process 7. Notes Civil Procedure .P. Chaves 199 9/11/2008 7:33:39 PM Mechanics of Giving Notice Jurisdiction Over The Parties / Personal Jurisdiction / In Personam Jurisdiction/Federal Actions/Waiver Of Formal Service. Request For 7. (Maryland State Firemen's Association v. Superior Court (DO!!!) Carnival Cruise Lines (DO!!) 7.2. Request For Rule of Law Specific Applications of the Service Provisions.2.1.2. Long Arm (Forum State Law sets standard) 2.2.September 11.talks about Waiver. Waiver Of Formal Service.Burnham v. Mere receipt of a request for waiver of service does not give rise to any obligation to answer the lawsuit and does not provide a basis for default judgment.1. .2. Civ. 2008 1. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Civil Procedure MD State Firemans Assoc v.
.. Generally 8. Notes Civil Procedure . Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard 8.September 09.1.she comes out and gives service (good service) Rule 4(e)(2)(b) Permits service process to be made upon an individual by leaving a copy of the summons and complait at his "dwelling or usual placce of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there. Forum law . 2008 See Mulane brief Blancing Test Civil Procedure . Issue What was the problem of giving service? Facts Holding Notes Rule 4(e) Process server yells fire. 2008 1. (Godo thing saves money and time) THE MERE FACT THAT THEY RECIEVED THE WAIVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY GOT NOTICE. Corporations..1.no service but filed the suit.you send a copy of the suit and a waiver form.1. If you fail to return this we will send service person.u return this and you have effictvly waived service of process.September 11.3. Notice Requirement 8. 7.
There.September 09.2. 462 U. Notes Civil Procedure . Basis for jurisdiction not stated: Mullane. Reasonableness standard: "The means [of notice] employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. b.)." Instead. Court held that publication is not enough to give notice but must be supplemented by notice mailes to the mortgagees las tknown avalible address. in determining what constituted reasonable notice.1. Holding: The Court held that the expense of notification by mail.S. etc.2. the standard is becoming one of general reasonableness in view of all the circumstances (e. importance of proceedings. . cost. must be used. if its name and address are "reasonably ascertainable. i. availability of other. better. Limited by Due Process 8. the Court held that publication notice will not suffice as to any party having any liberty or property interest in the controversy." But this may be limited by reasonable considerations of economy. 791 (1983). or by perosnal service. 2008 c. Publication 8. the Court simply relied on a state's interest in "providing means to close trusts that exist by the grace of its laws …" This indicates that old distinctions between the notice required in in personam actions and that required in in rem actions are dying out. Adams: Public notification of sale of real property due to mortagee not paying taxes. and the availability of names and addresses of beneficiaries. the Mullane "reasonableness in view of all the circumstances" test seems not to have been followed in the case of Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams. Similarly. declined to determine whether the case was in rem or in personam. were factors that could be taken into account in determining whether publication was sufficient notice. notification methods. notice by mail or other means equally likely to insure actual notice.2. Note Case: Mennonite Board of Missions v.1.g.1. Instead. Instead.
Amend. the constitutional requirements are satisfied. even if its cost is very high relative to the interest at stake.2. In the "reasonably ascertainable" situation. better calculated to give actual notice. Const. Summary: So the Mullane "reasonableness" test probably survives today. 8. those conditions are reasonably met. Hanover 1950 Jackson 9/11/2008 7:07:24 PM Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard/Notice Requirement/Publication RULE OF LAW: In order to satisfy due process challenges. is available? . U.C. and. but only as a very general principle.1. where they reside outside of the state and their names and addresses are available.A.2. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Mullane v.S. notice by publication is insufficient. Issue ISSUE: Is notice by publication sufficient to satisfy due process challenges where the parties to be informed reside out of state and an alternative means. notice by mail or other personalized means must be used. with due regard for practicalities and peculiarities of the case. A fundamental requirement of due process of law in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice 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. and must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.OVERALL REGARDING PUBLICATION: b. but if. 14. notice must be by means calculated to inform the desired parties. That general principle is overridden by the more specific rule that publication notice will not be enough as to any party with an interest in the controversy whose name and address are reasonably ascertainable. and the notice must be of such nature that it reasonably conveys the required information.
J. their claims would be barred. Notice in a New York legal paper is not reasonably calculated to provide out-of-state residents with the desired information. and assets were to be submitted to the courts for approval. it must also provide beneficiaries with adequate notice so that their rights to contest the accounting are not lost.) No. in fact. then publication is the most viable alternate means available for giving notice. the method chosen should. are available. Beneficiaries were to be notified of the accounting so that they might object to any irregularities in the administration of the common fund. publication is an impermissible means of providing notice.Facts A New York statute allowed corporate trustees to pool the assets of numerous small trusts administered by them. A guardian was appointed to protect the interests of principal and income beneficiaries. not because it. . better calculated to give actual notice. especially with regard to out-of-state beneficiaries. Where alternative methods. Publication is only a supplemental method of giving notice. the statutory requirement violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The purpose of a notice requirement is to inform parties that their rights are being affected. Central Hanover Bank (P) established a common fund by consolidating the corpus of 113 separate trusts under their control. at least potentially. A periodic accounting of profits. losses. Therefore. because under the circumstances. However. Notice by publication was not a reasonable method of informing interested parties that their rights were being affected. Each participating trust shared ratably in the common fund. but. Since publication to known beneficiaries is ineffective. While the state has a right to discharge trustees of their liabilities through the acceptance of their accounting. He objected to the sufficiency of the statutory notice provisions claiming that they violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In cases where the identity or whereabouts of beneficiaries or future interest holders is unknown. This allowed more efficient and economical administration of the funds. it is not readily calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand. but the trustees held complete control of all assets. Notice of the common fund was sent to all interested parties along with the relevant portions of the statute. fails to inform everyone. These parties have. Notice of accountings was by publication in a local New York newspaper. if at all possible. Reversed. Notice to known beneficiaries via publication is inadequate. With respect to remote future interest holders and unknown parties. the court will approve its use where alternative methods are not reasonably possible or practical. Mullane (D) was the appointed guardian for all parties known and unknown who had an interest in the trust's income. be deprived of property without due process of law. Mullane's (D) objections were overruled in state courts and the prese Holding (Jackson. be reasonably designed to accomplish this end. publication is permissible. Once approved by the court.
Subject-matter Jurisdiction 9. Pizzutti Non resident motors Note 5: Tulsa Proff. The United States Supreme Court under Srticle 3 have origional jurisdiction in cases of disputes versus states. agency of the bill instead of just publishing. If the admin of the esate as aware there were outstanding bills you had to mail the notice of the deceased to the coll. Ever single court will have one of these 3 things: Origional v. Notes Civil Procedure . Appellate jurisdiction Mandamous .1. limited 9. Pope Notice of probate is generally publication of debt.September 23.2.Notes Note 3: Wuchter v. Collection v.an orrigional action Appealte juridction courts can have trails if given ability in statute Habeous Corpus cases can be heard in appellate courts as a trial. concurrent general v. 8. 2008 Origional v. appellate Exclusive v. (exclusive/origional jurisdcition/ and the court is limited juridction) As well lawsuits against ambassadors. Federal Question Jurisdiction .2. Opportunity To Be Heard 9.
Jurisdiction (have to have either federal question or diversity) 1. Diversity Jurisdiction 1. question 2.9.1. Article 3 I. Congressional Contol of Federal Courts 1. any defendant can bring any claim against any exisiting or new party . Congress has the power to restrict the power of the federal courts: 75k barrier to get into Fed court set by congress 2. Diversity 1. Cases or controverses (dont worry about) authoirty of 9 or 10 cases/conroversies 1. have to have a claim that arises under: 1. Federal Question 1. 1. Dollar Amount: has nothing about dollar amount in conroversy in Art. Bank of United States I. Notes Civil Procedure . If primary claim is a diversity claim. 2008 1. Basic authoirty for diversity jurisdiction 3. any party .federal question 1.2. against any other party or new party as long as related to fed.1. Federal Law 1.2.October 02. Case associated with: Osborne v. 2008 -Supplemental Readings . 28 USC § 1331 2.1. Supplemental Jurisdiction 9. sets path for subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction III. Forms on ingrediant . General Federal Questions 1. Federal Statutes . ex Tx ag NY 100K claim.new claim must form part of the same case or controversy 1.Erie Doctorine Chapter Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Outline (handout) 1. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction 10.as long as related to claim 10. TEST FOR RELATED: Common Nucleus of Facts Test . must have supreme court and may have federal courts II. Notes Civil Procedure . 3 2.1. Federal Question 1. any claim.October 02. Supp. Constition 2.
Administrative regulations (OCC. Federal Common Law 1. and if my question is it properly in federal court (say something about art.Rule congress must have intended it to be in federal 4. 3 and then look to diversity or is it a federal question and what does it arive under (one of the 5). Rule: Thier right to recover rested on a breach of contract which is not a federal question. TWO CITIZENSHIPS . Perry) . phhysical presence and intent to remain indefinitly (Mas v. Well pleaded complaint rule 1. International Law 3.all the diffrent losses can aggregate (lost wages. What is the citizenship of a corporation? 1. IRS etc) 3. for each plantiff you can add all of the plantiff lost but cannot add it twice . 5. Means that if plan. Treaties of the United States 2.50K and same defendant 3. EXAMPLE: P . Good Faith .2. Specific Federal Questions 3.) 1. . Have to have MORE than 75k in controversy and exclusive of interest and cost 1. prof assoc. If I describe lawsuit in federal court nad ask about jur.plantiffs right to recover must rest of federal question that is being interpreted 1.100k D 2. Supplemental jurisdiction might get us here as two seperate claims one qualifies and the other does not. 2. 3. .. Cannot aggreate different theroies for the same loss (breach of contract and fraud) 3. is sneaking and depending on federal law and disguise it as state law go ahead and READ federal law INTO IT. destroyed car) 2. 1. Mas would be a resident of Lous if permanet resident alien 2. Legal Certainty Test . Strawbride Rule: complete diversity 1. punitive damage claim.suppose had a contract and you breachd and it is worh 25000 and sue you for 25000 plus 75000 punitive however in the law that is going to govern does not allow punitive TO A LEGAL CERTIANTY CANNOT GET PUNATIVE DAMAGES and so cannot be in federal court. 4.Review Brief 1. DIVERSITY 1. comes up in removal case (sues in state court and remove to federal court) sometimes plantiffs knowing that they will be removed will plead around a federal statute.. 4. Amount in Controvery 1.how to defeat federal purpose 2. partnerships.will assume good faith when bringing claim about example flowers worth 100k 1. Associations: citizenship of all of its members (non profit. Citizenship Requirment (TEST) 1.state of corporation and principle place of business 3. all plantiffs and defendants must be from different states . Executive Orders 5. Constituion does not require complete diversity 1. Citizen of the United States 2.no state on both sides of equation 1. Domicile in a state 1. What if congress says that you might not be able to sue in federal court. 28 USC 1332 1. Motley Test 2. Merrill Doude Case . EVERY ARROW HAS TO SATISY FEDERAL JURISDICTION (Alapada Case) 1.
2008 Article III Title 28.competance .deciding on the merits . Note 2: State courts can also hear Federal causes of action but not all of them because we have: (STATES CANNOT REFUSE TO HEAR A FED CASE) exclusive vs.competance . concurrent ex: patent cases on in Federal court (exclusive) ex: concurrent Civil rights cases canbe heard in Fed or state How do we know if a case can be heard in state court? Congress should state that it cannot go to state court if it is not to go. General v. ALL FEDERAL COURTS ARE LIMITED JURISDCITION ( ex bankruptcy courts.deciding on the merits Note 1: Constituional Duty Some duty that arise under a notehr states or countries law there is a duty to hear those cases. it cannot hear everything unless you can show that it has the power to hear that case. 2008 Article III Title 28. U.Civil Procedure . U.S. .S. . Limited Jurisdiction if a court is general juridcition it can hear everything unless tatute states that it cannot if court is limited juris. (Review Outline given by Prof) Civil Procedure .September 23.October 7. small claims courts) Civil Procedure .September 23. 2008 Chapter 4Subject Matter Jurisdiction.C.C.
General v. it cannot hear everything unless you can show that it has the power to hear that case. concurrent ex: patent cases on in Federal court (exclusive) ex: concurrent Civil rights cases canbe heard in Fed or state How do we know if a case can be heard in state court? Congress should state that it cannot go to state court if it is not to go. Note 2: State courts can also hear Federal causes of action but not all of them because we have: (STATES CANNOT REFUSE TO HEAR A FED CASE) exclusive vs. small claims courts) 10.2. Limited Jurisdiction if a court is general juridcition it can hear everything unless tatute states that it cannot if court is limited juris. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Issue Civil Procedure AFA Tours v. ALL FEDERAL COURTS ARE LIMITED JURISDCITION ( ex bankruptcy courts.Note 1: Constituional Duty Some duty that arise under a notehr states or countries law there is a duty to hear those cases. Whitchurch 9/23/2008 7:39:08 PM Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction ISSUE: May a court dismiss a diversity action for failure to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement without allowing a plaintiff to brief the issue? .
F. (P) filed an action in federal court. SUA SPONTE . Here. A.000 requires a somewhat detailed factual analysis. Tours. The law requires that a court cannot dismiss for failure to meet the jurisdictional requirement in diversity cases unless appears to a legal certainty that such is the case. Inc. namely customer lists.An action commenced by a citizen of one state against a citizen of another state or against an alien. we take plantiffs word for it unless it is not in good faith. the court raised sua sponte the issue of whether A.000 jurisdictional requirement. which the court could not have done on the record before it. over which the federal court has jurisdiction. a former A. Holding No. defendant has to show to legal certainty plantiff could not recover this amount to defeat jurisdiction. formed a competing company. whether A. F. A. Jurisdiction was based on diversity. the court dismissed.The value of a claim sought by a party to a law suit. F. Perry Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: . A court may not dismiss a diversity action for failure to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement without allowing a plaintiff to brief the issue. A. involving an amount in controversy of $10.An action taken by the court by its own motion and without the suggestion of one of the parties. At a hearing. A. Whitchurch (D). Reversed and remanded Notes MOUNT IN CONTROVERSY . Course: Civil Procedure Case Name: Mas v. Saint Paul Mercury Test: Good faith standard and well pleaded complaint means good faith standard. (P) has in fact suffered losses of at least $50. A. F. the record before a court which raises the issue sua sponte without briefing will be insufficient for a court to meet this requirement. DIVERSITY ACTION .000 or more. A.Facts ACTS: A. In all but the most extreme situations. F. (P) employee. F. A. (P) appealed. A. alleging misappropriation of trade secrets..'s (P) damages could meet the $50. (P) was in the business of providing guided tours... Concluding it could not.
and. Mr. Holding HOLDING AND DECISION: (Ainsworth.) No. complete diversity existed. have to live in a state.. Perry (D) appealed. They sued in federal court on the basis of diversity and obtained a $20. they were unsure of where they would live. In this case. the Mases (P) had no fixed intent to remain in Louisiana. and Mrs. therefore. Perry) Issue ISSUE: Does residence in a state create domicile for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction? Facts FACTS: The Mases (P) returned to Louisiana to complete Mr. (Mas v. they rented an apartment from Perry (D) and subsequently discovered he had used two-way mirrors to invade their privacy. Affirmed. Mas was a citizen of Mississippi. Mere residence in a state does not establish domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.intent to remain in that state Citizen of US and domicile in UK cannot bring suit under diversity. a lack of diversity existed. Thus. permanent home and principle establishment of home base.Judge: Book Page: Last Update: 9/23/2008 7:34:00 PM Legal Concepts: Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Rule of Law 1. While in Louisiana. Mas (P) was a French citizen. fixed. J. Mas (P) remained a French domiciliary. As a result. Mrs. Notes Students are inherently Domicilary . Mas (P) remained a Mississippi domiciliary and Mr. Mere residence in a state does not establish domicile for purposes for diversity jurisdiction. . After Mas (P) finished his education. contending they were citizens of Louisiana. Formerly. Domicile is the true. Mas's (P) education. Determining Citizenship.000 judgment.
September 23. fixed. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Lacks v. Lacks) . permanent home and principle establishment of home base. INTENT TO STAY The day you file the suit is when domicile and citzenship is reviewed Rule Change since CASE A permanet resident alien is not a citizen of the domicle of the United States 11. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts. (look at plantiffs origional petition) 11. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts 11. Lacks 9/23/2008 7:20:50 PM Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts 1.1. A final judgment is not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the defect alleged concerns a judicial error as to the existence of a necessary element of the cause of action. (Lacks v.Citizen of US domicle of State Test for Domicile: Domicile is the true. 2008 Organize it in State courts by amount of damages.2. Notes Civil Procedure .
Notes Civil Procedure . Holding (Breitel. Affirmed. There is no jurisdictional question present.) No. C. The court's subject matter jurisdiction is statutory and is unquestionable in this case.September 23. The absence of a necessary element of the cause of action presents a different question than that concerning the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. .Issue ISSUE: Is a final judgment void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the rendering court erroneously found present all the requisite elements of the cause of action? Facts FACT SUMMARY: Mrs. Lacks (D) moved to vacate her husband's (P) divorce judgment contending the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 2008 District Court County Court at Law Justice/Small Claims Courts Municiple Courts All have subject Matter jurisdiction guidelines. Notes 12. A final judgment is not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction merely because the rendering court erroneously found the existence of a necessary element of the cause of action. Organization of State Courts 12. J.1.
October 02. S. Pendent Jurisdiction 13. federal courts may decide state issues which are closely related to the federal issues being litigated. § 1367(c)(1)-(c)(3) sets forth the exclusive circumstances under which a federal court may appropriately decline pendent jurisdiction. 1. 1. (United Mine Workers of America v. Notes Civil Procedure .sets fourth have to articlualte one of those four grounds 2. Ancillary Jurisdiction 13. 2008 1. Under pendent jurisdiction. 2008 1. Notes Civil Procedure . The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts—Supplemental Claims and Parties. United Mine Workers v.1. Notes Civil Procedure . 2008 1.1.October 02. 2.2.October 02. 13.3.13. Supplemental Jurisdiction 13. Common Nucleus Of Facts Test 13. United States District Court for the Central District of California) 1. 13.1. example: citizens of different states but only 50k 1. Absent extraordinary circumstances. 2. Gibbs) .22.214.171.124. 1367C . 3. (Executive Software North America. 28 U. The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts—Supplemental Claims and Parties. Gibbs 1. Inc. 1. v. C.
1. 2008 14. Three basic venue rules: 1. 2008 Idea of venue: -place where the trial is -within the state How does venue differ from personal jurisdiction? . Forum Shopping .personal juridistion looks at the state (minimum contacts) personal jurisidiction p. Venue is set by district.4.4. Where the subject of the action is situated local 2. Key word is: THE DISTRICT.Texas has four districts. Where the defendant resides Local v.October 09. Transitory: . federal court could hear both 13. Test: Common nuceuls of operative facts (more or less same facts) 1.347 lists venue however looks at the place within the state where you can be sued(county/city) What is the geographic unt for Federa venue? The ENTIRE United States Federal court personal jusidcition contorlled by the state but venue is not. Notes Civil Procedure . Notes Civil Procedure .2. Federal Venue is ocntroleld by Federal law.. Fedearl system broken up into districts . Venue 13. Venue 14. 1. Where the cause of action arose (where tort happened) transitory 3. winning the case.1.mone.October 09.
Reyno 4. General venue v. (Piper Aircraft Co. a federal court can only transfer a case to a court where the plaintiff could have originally brought the case. Harrison: 1. Blaski) and forum non conveniens Bates v. . (Hoffman v. etc certain fact occurred or is part of the case. tort examples) Mandatory venue v. but the land is in Miss. Transfer of Venue in Federal Courts. (Bates v. §1391 is GENERAL VENUE for Federal Venue Structure (need to have this read pretty well) 1406 is wrong venue statute 1404(a) . (breach of contract. Blaski 3. Local and Transitory Actions. Venue is proper under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the district where an allegedly offending letter is received.inconvient venue (Hoffman v. Reasor-Hill Corp. Hoffman v. Specific Venuepatent claims. S. Under 28 U. and with counterclaim it is local and land is in Miss. Harrison) It is a local venue action . A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to him than that of the present forum. been Piper Aircraft Co. V. C & S Adjusters. Permissive Venue Local is mandatory and other things are mandatory depending on the statute..Local venue means like in rem have protery and fighting about the property Transitory venue means a certain cateogry of actions (transitory actions) it ran with the party the defendant and not with teh thing and can sue anywhere you can find him and serve him or wherever you live. Venue in the Federal Courts. Inc. 2. Blaski) If defendant objects to wrong venue can onl move it to where is could have filed. v. the action may be brought in the state where the defendant resides. If a local action cannot be brought at the situs of the property because of lack of jurisdiction of the defendant.brings transitory calim in ark. v. Forum Non Conveniens. (Reasor-Hill Corp. Court . v.) Statory phrase dealing with is "substnatila part of where the events took place" . C&S Adjusters.breach of contract transitory. C. § 1404(a). Inc. Reyno) 1404 authorizes a transfer but there is not federal court in scotland to transfer it.
Forum Non Conveniens 14. . Issue ISSUE: May a plaintiff defeat a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens merely on the basis that the laws of the alternative forum are less advantageous? Facts FACT SUMMARY: Reyno (P). the representative of five victims of an air crash. But under forum nonconveniens we cannot tell Scotland what law to apply. Reyno 10/9/2008 7:31:16 PM Venue/Forum Non Conveniens RULE OF LAW: A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to him than that of the present forum. When you move a case under 1404 when you transfer a case to another court the Choice of law is the same law as the plantiff filed.1.2. SAME FACTORS BUT THE TWO ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT 14.2.Forum non conveniens: if the court decides that this is the case then case is dismissed and then refilled in Scotland and protects plantiff that if it is not filled in scotland then court will again assume jurisdiction. Forum non conveniens is a scotland common law in our legal system. brought suit in California even though the location of the crash and the home of the victims were in Scotland. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Piper Aircraft Co v.
2008 . witnesses.October 21.An equitable doctrine permitting a court to refrain from hearing and determining a case when the matter may be more properly and fairly heard in another forum. Holding No. 15. As a result. The district court granted the motion.1. the motion was properly granted. A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law of the alternative forum is less advantageous than that of the present forum. If the state chosen by the plaintiff has the only adequate remedy for the wrong alleged. Erie Doctrine / Ascertaining Applicable Law / Choice Of Law 15. Thus. and interests were in Scotland. contending that Scotland was the proper forum. QUICKNOTES FORUM NON CONVENIENS . the fact that the chosen state's laws are less attractive to the defendant could be used to defeat a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. then the motion may be denied. while the court of appeals reversed. Notes The Court in this case specifically noted that under some circumstances. Notes Civil Procedure . even though the accident occurred and all the victims resided in Scotland. Reversed.FACTS: Reyno (P) was the representative of five air crash victims' estates and brought suit for wrongful death in United States district court in California. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. all the evidence. In this case. Piper (D) moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Reyno (P) opposed the motion on the basis that the Scottish laws were less advantageous to her than American laws. the most convenient forum was there.
Substantive v. whom wins the case. Two kinds of choice of law that go on in any court: 1. Ascertaining the State Law.one overlays the other.when this happens always follows local state law When this RI federal court is faced with applying state law: What two things does the court supposed to do? (Choice of law Rule) BINDING AUTHORITY 1. CHOICE OF LAW Western Union Case . Civil Procedure .manufactur 1. Erie doctorine is vertical (federal over state) .Horizontal choice of law. from Supreme Court for binding authority 2) Miss. Substantive law is like contracts. American Emery Wheel Works) In order to be federal question must arise under constituion.side by side jurisdictions (different legal systems not overlapping) 2. torts.. etc. states statutes PERSUASSIVE AUTHORITY Persuasive: 1.the law of the place of the wrong . A state supreme court ruling on an issue need not be followed by a federal court sitting in diversity if that ruling has lost its vitality.October 28.if you buy a product from someone and you can state a cause of action can sue .. (other things under Farticle III etc) Federal Court follows that STATES CHOICE OF LAW RULE. Lex locus delicti .. Procedural Law Forum laws governs its only procedure. Faced with state law question. (Mason v.) lower courts 2) Federal Courts in that state SPECULATE!! Party can make the argument that Binding authoirty is outdated and that court might use discretion as to what should be done.) Look to common law of Miss.. 2008 Mason Case: privity .
these are choice of law tests.. going to allow him to recover under universal law. However New Mexico law allows this.. Distinction between rights and remedies Right was the obligation the duty/breach Rememdy was what ou got: money.Place of wrong.can argue where was manufactured. For now on when faced with choice of law question not governed by agreement will use the above test.. 2008 Duncan v.. goes on appeal to 5th Circuit.. Texas choice of law rule is Lex Locus Contractus should rule (where the contract was made) Contract was made in Texas .HOWEVER LES LOCUS DELICITI... on injured and the other one killed..round manufactured in Texas.. Anther party. one from TN and one from Wisc. When Elvis died Boxcar company liscened this to Factors Inc. Texas did away with the unity of release rule. and in Texas that is Les Locus Delicti .October 30. 5th circuit state that trial court made a mistake that in the 5th circuit have choice of law rule that says when faced with more than one state (gov't interest analysis) Choice influencing considerations . and applying that Texas Law applies Factors Case: Issue: Rights to likeness after death This is not a question of federal law it is set by the states.. injuction. more like an international law case..only settling with whom named..there is diversity in this case and how ended up in federal court.. Victims from Wisc adn TN. Pro Art tried to sell posters of his likeness and Factors sued for an injunction. Texas..this case is really a contract about a settlement. Wife signs a release with Cessna. Argument that just because Les Locus Delicti not just Cambodia law ..filed in Federal Court suing various defendants..say maybe texeas law but have to to this test. Must do what a local state court would do. Deahs occureed in Cambodia. Read Challoner for Thursday: Products liability. .place where wrong occurred so Cambodia law. Court decided to adopt restatement of conflict of law.. Cessna Out of Federal Court. Idea was that estate owned likeness of Elvis..Supplemental Readings Court oes further. Supreme Court decided that 5th Circuit was wrong and cite Skinner Electric that choice of law test with diversity case in Federal Court apply locate state court rules.. Remedies were governed by form law Rights are governed by where breach occurred. Cessna wants NM law. will see how the Texas Choice of Law rule is changed.leave Lex Locus Delicti Facts: plane crash in New Mexico result is pilot and the plantiff's husband died...Chikasaw law has law that would enforece rights but unless you show us that they would not enforce under Universal law would give cause of action. Parent company in Maryland and principle place of business in Penn. Brought action in Houston. Law of state with most signifigant relationship test(7 factor balancing test) will be the choice of law.. Civil Procedure .. .
market and make money off of his likeness. law is and right now Tenn. would be chosen because this is where the liscensed was given to Factors in probate court.Court is faced with can someone other than Factors Inc. Now hae to figure out what Tenn. v. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Erie R. Although the 1789 Rules of Decision Act left federal courts unfettered to apply their own rules of procedure in common law actions brought in federal court. Co. law would cover right of likeness therefore look to common law and there is no right to likeness law. Co v. but case law as well. Case filed in New York seeking the relief of injunction in NY. Choice of Law: Horizontal v. Vertical 15. law does not have anything with rightness to likeness. Tompkins 10/21/2008 7:02:56 PM Erie Doctrine / Ascertaining Applicable Law / Choice Of Law The Erie Doctrine: The Rules of Decision Act and the Rules Enabling Act. The choice of law rule in New York is signifigant contacts test. No evidence that Tenn. Therefore Tenn. . Tompkins) Issue Was the trial court in error in refusing to recognize state case law as the proper rule of decision in deciding the substantive issue of liability? Facts Tompkins (P) was walking in a right of way parallel to some railroad tracks when an Erie Railroad (D) train came by. (Erie R. Tompkins (P) was struck and injured by what he would. at trial.2. state law governs substantive issues. where the posters were being sold. State law includes not only statutory law.
which held that federal courts exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship need not. where he won a judgment for $30. could simply reincorporate in another state. state courts would have treated Tompkins (P) as a trespasser in denying him recovery for other than wanton or wilful misconduct on Erie's (D) part. corporations. there was no satisfactory way to distinguish between local and general law. local citizens could move out of the state and bring suit in federal court if they were disposed to do so. § 725 requires that federal courts in all matters except those where some federal law is controlling apply as their rules of decision the law of the state. Furthermore. 41 U. Up to this time. recognized in federal courts. the decision was affirmed. 2) Swift had numerous political and social defects. S. federal courts had assumed the power to make "general law" decisions even though Congress was powerless to enact "general law" statutes. Holding Brandeis. There is no federal common law.000. in matters of general jurisprudence. unwritten as well as written. On the other hand. the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. The privilege of selecting the court for resolving disputes rested with the noncitizen who could pick the more favorable forum.) 1 (1842). J. S. Under "general" law.claim to be an open door extending from one of the rail cars. The Court's opinion is in four parts: (1) Swift v. Reversed. 28 U. The federal courts have no power derived from the Constitution or by Congress to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be "local" or "general" in nature. The resulting far-reaching discrimination was due to the broad province accorded "general law" in which many matters of seemingly local concern were included. local citizens could move out of the state and bring suit in federal court if Furthermore. Tyson. Swift introduced grave discrimination by noncitizens against citizens. Tompkins (P) brought suit in a federal district court in New York. Upon appeal to a federal circuit court.) Yes. c. Because Erie (D) was a New York corporation. More than statutory relief is involved here. similarly. Notes . Tompkins (P) would have been regarded as a licensee and would only have been obligated to show ordinary negligence. Under Pennsylvania case law (the applicable law since the accident occurred there). is overruled. The hoped-for uniformity among state courts had not occurred. 20. the unconstitutionality of Swift is clear. Section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. (3) Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress. apply the unwritten law of the state as declared by its highest court. (4) The federal district court was bound to follow the Pennsylvania case law which would have denied recovery to Tompkins (P). (16 Pet.
Issue Does a state statue of limitations. Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Guaranty Trust Co v. Tompkins.EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: Erie can fairly be characterized as the most significant and sweeping decision on civil procedure ever handed down by the U. the substantive right is created by the state. even though the suit be brought in equity. Co. v. also act as a bar to the same action if the suit is brought in equity in federal court and jurisdiction being based on diversity of citizenship? Facts Holding es. Note. 304 U. issues of substantive law must be decided in accord with the applicable state law—usually the state in which the federal court sits. how later Supreme Court decisions have made inroads into the broad doctrine enunciated here. which would bar a suit in state court. While state law cannot define the remedies which a federal court must . since the former are more frequently defined by legislative enactment. S. 64 (1938). Erie held that while federal courts may apply their own rules of procedure. however. overruled a particular way of looking at law after its inadequacies had been laid bare. Federal courts have traditionally given state-created rights in equity greater respect than rights in law. York 10/21/2008 7:25:57 PM Erie Doctrine / Ascertaining Applicable Law / Choice Of Law Where a state statute that would completely bar recovery in state court has significant effect on the outcome-determination of the action. the federal court is bound by the state law. Even though federal equity may be thought of as a separate legal system. Supreme Court. and federal courts must respect state law which governs that right. As interpreted in subsequent decisions. S. Erie R.
Emery 10/28/2008 6:49:59 PM Erie Doctrine / Ascertaining Applicable Law / Choice Of Law . Notes Guaranty Trust. in effect. Hanna v. Reversed and remanded. since the federal court is adjudicating a state-created right solely because of diversity of citizenship of the parties it is. immaterial to make a "substantive-procedure" dichotomy—Erie R. the latter prevails regardless of the effect on outcome of the litigation. Through diversity jurisdiction. the result should not be any different in a federal court extending jurisdiction solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Blue Ridge Elec. And in Byrd v. 460 (1965). S. It is. and procedure. it cannot afford recovery if the right to recovery is made unavailable by the state. held that where state law conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Erie insures that insofar as legal rules determine the outcome of litigation. the right to a jury trial in federal court) are so important as to be controlling over state law—once again. therefore. S.give simply because a federal court in diversity jurisdiction is available as an alternative. 356 U. a federal court may afford an equitable remedy for a substantive right recognized by a state even though a state court cannot give it. practice. the outcome notwithstanding. Plumer. but rather an expression of a policy that touches the distribution of judicial power between state and federal courts. Congress meant to afford out-of-state litigants another tribunal." but whether the statute so affects the result of litigation as to be controlling in state law. Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Mason v. only another court of the state. The question is not whether a statute of limitation is "procedural. which clarified Erie. Matters of "substance" and of "procedure" turn on different considerations. may itself be in the process of being slowly eroded by modern courts. the Court suggested that some constitutional doctrines (there. Cooperative. 525 (1958). Co. and not another body of law. Here. Federal courts enforce state-created substantive rights if the mode of proceeding and remedy were consonant with the traditional body of equitable remedies. v. Tompkins was not an endeavor to formulate scientific legal terminology. 380 U.
Ascertaining the State Law. Course: Civil Procedure Case Name: Swift v. A state supreme court ruling on an issue need not be followed by a federal court sitting in diversity if that ruling has lost its vitality. not every issue that comes before a federal court sitting in diversity will have been ruled upon by a state supreme court. Here.) No. a pronouncement of a state supreme court will be final on a given issue. C. it is up to the district court to try to decide how the state court would rule on that issue today. This is borne out by dicta in at least one case indicating dissatisfaction with the 1928 precedent.1. Where. Tyson Case Date: Citation: . When this occurs. there has been a major shift in products liability law since 1928. The order of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. the decision appears to have lost its vitality. and it is unlikely that the Mississippi Supreme Court would follow its own precedent. Generally speaking. A state supreme court ruling on an issue need not be followed by a federal court sitting in diversity if that ruling has lost its vitality. It must search through other state precedent to rule on an issue. however. Notes EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: Obviously. the role of a federal court becomes much like a state trial court. it seems relatively clear that the true state of the law in Mississippi is not to require contractual privity. There is no question but that a federal court sitting in diversity must follow state law. American Emery Wheel Works) Issue ISSUE: Must a state supreme court ruling on an issue be followed by a federal court sitting in diversity. even if that ruling has lost its vitality? Facts Holding HOLDING AND DECISION: (Magruder. (Mason v. J. In light of this.
1652 federal court apply state law excepet where Congress says other wise. New York law was going to govern. Which State? Swift v. ..S..C.someone whom gave consideration Federal Court about rights on a holder in due course being enforced..if no federal law on point then even in federal court you apply state law.Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: 10/21/2008 7:23:31 PM Legal Concepts: Erie Doctrine / Ascertaining Applicable Law / Choice Of Law Rule of Law Issue Issue of holder in due course. do not apply local common law but SUPER common law which is the Majority Rule.. Federal Court decided Facts Holding Notes Rules of Decision Act: 28 U.Tyson answers and states: you are in federal court not governed by federal law and there is no state statute it will be cmmon law.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?