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
Mining (1952): ← ← ← • General Jurisdiction: TEST: Continous and Systematic COntacts o What Ohio had over Benget Mining.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.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: ..• • 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.. 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.
Cook County. 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..• • 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. Klingbiel. dismissed both the complaint and the cross-claim and the plintiff appealed.. To manufacture and knowledge that it is being used elsewhere court states that is enough (OK under Ill law) . J. 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.. of Comm. moved for dismissal of the complaint and the cross-claim filed against it. J. wherein one defendant. Allen Ashcraft. a foreign corporation. 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. o Rule: Court comes up with term “STREAM OF COMMERCE” o If a defendant places their product in St. The Circuit Court. held that the foreign corporation.
← ← Legal Issue(s): Whether corporate Dfs. As they passed through OK another car struck their Audi in the rear. causing a fire which severely burned Resp’s wife and two children. automobile wholesaler and retailer. defendant suing trail judge. The following year they left NY for a new home in AZ. Woodson (1980) Mandamous Case: like an appeal. (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. Seaway Volkswagon in NY. who carried on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma and availed themselves of no privileges or benefits of Oklahoma law.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.apeal during the case filed in the supreme court of the state to make the judge change his ruling. 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? ← • . purchases a new Audi from Pet.. ← ← ← Relevant Facts: Resp..
It is foreseeable that autos sold by WWV and Seaway may take them to OK. State court may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between defendant and forum state. has no sales. If the sale of a product is not simply an isolated occurrence. agents. But foreseeability applies to a dfs conduct and connection w/ the forum State such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into ct. ← ← Court Rationale: The record has a total absence of those affiliating circumstances that are a necessary predicate to any exercise of state-court jurisdiction. Financial benefits accruing from collateral relations will not support jurisdiction if they do not stem fro a Constitutionally cognizable contact w/ the State. They close no sales and perform no service there. Ok S. 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. or retail offices. Pets appealed. there. P. They solicit no business there either through salespersons or advertising. ← ← 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. Reversed ← ← Law or Rule(s): Due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment limits power of state court to render valid personal judgment against nonresident defendant. OK. Pet does not have any contact with OK at all. 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.← Court’s Holding: No ← ← Procedure: Tr ct ruling for Resp. or relations w/ the State of OK. Ct denied appeal by Pet. salesmen. ties. ← ← Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner does not do business in OK. Petitioners carry on no activity in OK whatsoever. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of Ok law. Foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the D. Pet have no contact. ← .
v. to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there. The accident occurred in OK. The petitioners are not unconnected with the forum state. It is not that the dealer foresees that they will move. Each sold the auto which in fact was driven in OK where it was involved in an accident. Ruzewicz ← ← Facts ← . 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. and the relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is "reasonable . The State has a legitimate interest in enforcing its laws designed to keep its highway system safe." ← ← 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. . 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." 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. ties. Essential witnesses and evidence were in OK. The Pl were hospitalized in OK when they brought suit. . or relations.” ← ← 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. and the trial can proceed at least as efficiently in OK as anywhere else.
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. 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. Rudzewicz could not have anticipated being summoned into court in Florida. ← ←  Holding ← ← The Supreme Court concluded that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the protections of the forum state (Florida) and were.← Two Michigan residents (John Rudzewicz and Brian MacShara. therefore. ← ←  Dissent ← ← In dissent. 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. The two defendants would pay their franchise fees and royalties to Burger King's Florida headquarters. ← ←  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. to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants would be fundamentally unfair and thus violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. the defendants) entered into an agreement with Burger King to run a franchise. Burger King then appealed to the Supreme Court. . ← ← NOTES: • Court found that he purposefully availed himself to Fl law. 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. 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. The defendants were unable to make their monthly payments to Burger King.
Difference between choice of law and choice of forum clause • Forum clause sets the forum in which the lawsuit will occur.. 5) Judicial Systems Interest if all other factors are equal lets pick a fair site and not burden the overall system. if tied usually go with plaintiff 3) Interest of forum state Legislative branch helps determine public policy. 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. 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. 2) Plaintiff’s Interest convient and effective relief. best evidence of state interest is Florida statutes. Poloski drive into 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. same type of burden as above. • 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. Stream of Commerce did not apply FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TEST o Factors: (balancing test) 1) Burden on defendant economic.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’. physical evidence location. Significantly different.
← ← ← Holdings: The Court of Appeals.2d 870. ← ← Justice Brennan dissented and filed an opinion.. Denying Colombian corporation's motion to dismiss actions for lack of in personam jurisdiction over it. Wyatt H. acceptance of checks drawn on Texas bank. Caddy ← ← Background: Operator of “Pebble Beach” golf resort brought trademark infringement and trademark dilution action against operator of a British bed and breakfast.W. J.W. Superior Court • ← ← Helioteros v. ← • • ← Waiver. reversed and dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction. and plaintiffs appealed. 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. v. Trott. Hamilton. J. Phyllis J.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. held that: . entered judgment against corporation on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. reversed. granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. held that Colombian corporation's contacts with Texas.. 638 S. Hall ← ← Wrongful death action was instituted in a Texas state court against a Colombian corporation and others. Corporation appealed. and purchases of helicopters and equipment from Texas manufacturer and related training trips. and plaintiff appealed. Heard. The Supreme Court. 616 S. ← ← Texas Supreme Court judgment reversed. ← ← ← Pebble Beach CO. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals. which consisted of one trip to Texas by corporation's chief executive officer for purpose of negotiating transportation services contract. The Texas Supreme Court. Harris County. the District Court. Circuit Judge. Certiorari was granted. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California.2d 247. Justice Blackmun.
The court's authority over a person or parties to a law suit.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. and ← (2) defendant's acts were insufficient to subject him to personal jurisdiction under the federal long-arm rule. and thus were insufficient to subject him to personal jurisdiction there. consistent with the requirements of due process. whereby the court determines whether the defendant intentionally conducted activities in the forum and thus knows. Court of Registration ← ← QUICKNOTES MINIMUM CONTACTS . ← • 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. The mere fact that you have a contact does not create jurisdiction you have to go to the second test .← (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.The minimum degree of contact necessary in order to sustain a cause of action within a particular forum. PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT . that such conduct could give rise to litigation in that forum. ← ← Affirmed. PERSONAL JURISDICTION . or could reasonably expect.
2.1.1. .. 2008 Ch 2: Personal Jurisdiction Ch 3: Notice Ch 4: Sub. 2008 Can service to a corp permitting the delivery of process to an officer or director of the corporation or agent of serving process.1.September 11. Notes Civil Procedure . negihbor to give to person.1. Matter Juris Ch 5: Venue Ch 6: What law applies 2. Notes Civil Procedure .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. 2. Substituted Service 2.2.September 11. Service On Corporations 2. Service Of Process 2.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 . Actual Notice = bad service Ex. 2008 Have to make three good faith attempts and then get substitute service (get to name someone else employer.October 21.
. (Godo thing saves money and time) THE MERE FACT THAT THEY RECIEVED THE WAIVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY GOT NOTICE. substituted service 4.3. (Maryland State Firemen's Association v. Mechanics of Giving Notice 3. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Civil Procedure MD State Firemans Assoc v. 2008 1. 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.you send a copy of the suit and a waiver form.September 11.. 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. If you fail to return this we will send service person.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.u return this and you have effictvly waived service of process. Waiver 4(d)2 3. 4(d)2 . . no service but filed the suit.talks about Waiver.2. Notes Civil Procedure . 3.P.Personal notice 2.1. Civ. Request For Rule of Law Specific Applications of the Service Provisions.
Letters Rogatory .September 11.. service on people of foreign countries 4. 4.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. return of service 5. The Hauge Convention .Issue What was the problem of giving service? Facts Holding Notes Rule 4(e) Process server yells fire.1. Notes Civil Procedure . 2.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.1.September 11.it is a means of complying with foreign law so you dont have to send your person across seas and possibly he get arrested..old common law method .(international court of justice) . 2008 . 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. will get sent through the correct channels to be served. Notes Civil Procedure .
1. 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. Weinberg was served. Szukhent) Issue ISSUE: Is a person. 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.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. an agent authorized by appointment? Facts FACT SUMMARY: Szukhent (D) leased farm equipment from National (P). 6. and she mailed the summons to Szukhent (D). Ruling was that you have to trust the thing in the record .. Holding . Service of an Agent 6.. When National (P) commenced this action on the lease. 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. The printed lease provided that Szukhent (D) designated Weinberg as agent to accept service of process in New York. Ltd. V. (National Equipment Rental. Szukhent 9/11/2008 7:34:46 PM Service of an Agent Delivery to an Agent Authorized by Appointment.
Jurisdiction Based Upon Power over Property. 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.1. Notes Civil Procedure . Jurisdiction Over The Parties / Personal Jurisdiction / In Personam Jurisdiction 7. Civ. Notes You can contract away your agent for service of process. Heitner: 1. Further.DECISION: (Stewart. An agent with such limited authority can in no meaningful sense be deemed to have an interest antagonistic to Szukhent (D). 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. J. in fact. Hence.1. (Shaffer v.) Yes. Reversed and remanded. to permit notice to be served by the opposing party. This case does not involve a due process problem since Szukhent (D) did. Based On 7. receive timely and complete notice. Weinberg was his agent authorized by appointment to receive process within the meaning of Fed. 2008 Shaffer v. Here. Heitner) . the purpose underlying the provision designating Weinberg was to assure that any litigation under the lease would be conducted in New York.September 09. R.1. or to waive notice altogether. the fact that Szukhent (D) did not know her is irrelevant. Ownership Of Property. Here. H OLDING AND 7. Weinberg was appointed Szukhent's (D) agent for the single purpose of receiving service of process. prompt notice to Szukhent (D) having been given. Parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court. 4(e)(2). P.
2. Amenability To Suit 7.1.1. Long Arm (Forum State Law sets standard) 2. 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.2.Burnham v. Superior Court (DO!!!) Carnival Cruise Lines (DO!!) 22.214.171.124. Federal Actions 7.2. Request For Rule of Law Specific Applications of the Service Provisions.1. Request For 7. Notes Civil Procedure . . Chaves) Fed R.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.2. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Civil Procedure MD State Firemans Assoc v. (Maryland State Firemen's Association v. 4(d)2 . 2008 1. Waiver Of Formal Service.2.September 11.talks about Waiver. Limited by Due Process 7. Civ.
1.1. Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard 8..you send a copy of the suit and a waiver form. Issue What was the problem of giving service? Facts Holding Notes Rule 4(e) Process server yells fire. 7.September 09. Corporations. 2008 See Mulane brief Blancing Test Civil Procedure .. Notes Civil Procedure .no service but filed the suit.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.u return this and you have effictvly waived service of process. Notice Requirement 8.September 11. 2008 1. (Godo thing saves money and time) THE MERE FACT THAT THEY RECIEVED THE WAIVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY GOT NOTICE. Generally 8.1.3. Forum law . If you fail to return this we will send service person..
Notes Civil Procedure . Court held that publication is not enough to give notice but must be supplemented by notice mailes to the mortgagees las tknown avalible address. Similarly. were factors that could be taken into account in determining whether publication was sufficient notice. availability of other. the standard is becoming one of general reasonableness in view of all the circumstances (e. Instead. 2008 c.S. 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.1. Adams: Public notification of sale of real property due to mortagee not paying taxes. better. Instead.2.1. 462 U. and the availability of names and addresses of beneficiaries. .September 09. must be used. i. or by perosnal service.2. notice by mail or other means equally likely to insure actual notice.g." But this may be limited by reasonable considerations of economy. 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. Basis for jurisdiction not stated: Mullane." Instead. declined to determine whether the case was in rem or in personam. b.). the Court held that publication notice will not suffice as to any party having any liberty or property interest in the controversy. Limited by Due Process 8. Holding: The Court held that the expense of notification by mail.1. Note Case: Mennonite Board of Missions v. in determining what constituted reasonable notice. if its name and address are "reasonably ascertainable. Reasonableness standard: "The means [of notice] employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. There. Adams. Publication 8. 791 (1983). etc. notification methods. cost.2. importance of proceedings.
those conditions are reasonably met.S. the constitutional requirements are satisfied.OVERALL REGARDING PUBLICATION: b. and the notice must be of such nature that it reasonably conveys the required information. 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. 14.2. Summary: So the Mullane "reasonableness" test probably survives today. even if its cost is very high relative to the interest at stake.A. 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. U. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Mullane v. but if. In the "reasonably ascertainable" situation. 8. notice by mail or other personalized means must be used. but only as a very general principle. 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.C.Amend. with due regard for practicalities and peculiarities of the case. and must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance. notice must be by means calculated to inform the desired parties. Const.1.2. where they reside outside of the state and their names and addresses are available. better calculated to give actual notice. is available? . 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. notice by publication is insufficient.
if at all possible. but. Each participating trust shared ratably in the common fund. be deprived of property without due process of law. Where alternative methods. Central Hanover Bank (P) established a common fund by consolidating the corpus of 113 separate trusts under their control. Notice in a New York legal paper is not reasonably calculated to provide out-of-state residents with the desired information. Notice to known beneficiaries via publication is inadequate. at least potentially. A guardian was appointed to protect the interests of principal and income beneficiaries. be reasonably designed to accomplish this end. J. the method chosen should. While the state has a right to discharge trustees of their liabilities through the acceptance of their accounting. because under the circumstances. in fact. Notice of the common fund was sent to all interested parties along with the relevant portions of the statute. are available. . better calculated to give actual notice. Therefore. it must also provide beneficiaries with adequate notice so that their rights to contest the accounting are not lost. and assets were to be submitted to the courts for approval. publication is an impermissible means of providing notice. A periodic accounting of profits. it is not readily calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand. Since publication to known beneficiaries is ineffective. not because it. 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. losses. but the trustees held complete control of all assets. Mullane's (D) objections were overruled in state courts and the prese Holding (Jackson. However.) No. In cases where the identity or whereabouts of beneficiaries or future interest holders is unknown. the court will approve its use where alternative methods are not reasonably possible or practical. especially with regard to out-of-state beneficiaries. Notice by publication was not a reasonable method of informing interested parties that their rights were being affected. With respect to remote future interest holders and unknown parties. He objected to the sufficiency of the statutory notice provisions claiming that they violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. fails to inform everyone. These parties have. 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 permissible. Publication is only a supplemental method of giving notice. then publication is the most viable alternate means available for giving notice. Once approved by the court. their claims would be barred. Mullane (D) was the appointed guardian for all parties known and unknown who had an interest in the trust's income. Notice of accountings was by publication in a local New York newspaper.Facts A New York statute allowed corporate trustees to pool the assets of numerous small trusts administered by them. This allowed more efficient and economical administration of the funds. Reversed.
Ever single court will have one of these 3 things: Origional v. concurrent general v. Appellate jurisdiction Mandamous . Subject-matter Jurisdiction 9. If the admin of the esate as aware there were outstanding bills you had to mail the notice of the deceased to the coll. Notes Civil Procedure . Federal Question Jurisdiction . Collection v. appellate Exclusive v. The United States Supreme Court under Srticle 3 have origional jurisdiction in cases of disputes versus states.Notes Note 3: Wuchter v. Pizzutti Non resident motors Note 5: Tulsa Proff. Pope Notice of probate is generally publication of debt. 2008 Origional v. limited 9. Opportunity To Be Heard 9.2. agency of the bill instead of just publishing. (exclusive/origional jurisdcition/ and the court is limited juridction) As well lawsuits against ambassadors.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.September 23.1.2. 8.
Federal Statutes .October 02. 2008 1. TEST FOR RELATED: Common Nucleus of Facts Test . must have supreme court and may have federal courts II. 3 2.new claim must form part of the same case or controversy 1. Bank of United States I. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction 10. Federal Law 1. Constition 2. Federal Question 1. General Federal Questions 1.as long as related to claim 10. 28 USC § 1331 2. ex Tx ag NY 100K claim. have to have a claim that arises under: 1. Diversity Jurisdiction 1. Cases or controverses (dont worry about) authoirty of 9 or 10 cases/conroversies 1.9. Basic authoirty for diversity jurisdiction 3. 1.1. against any other party or new party as long as related to fed. Supp. sets path for subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction III.2. Jurisdiction (have to have either federal question or diversity) 1. Notes Civil Procedure .1.Erie Doctorine Chapter Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Outline (handout) 1.October 02. any claim. any defendant can bring any claim against any exisiting or new party . 2008 -Supplemental Readings . Federal Question 1. any party .1. Notes Civil Procedure . Article 3 I. Congressional Contol of Federal Courts 1. Supplemental Jurisdiction 9. Forms on ingrediant .1. question 2. If primary claim is a diversity claim. Diversity 1. Case associated with: Osborne v.2. Dollar Amount: has nothing about dollar amount in conroversy in Art. Congress has the power to restrict the power of the federal courts: 75k barrier to get into Fed court set by congress 2.federal question 1.
.state of corporation and principle place of business 3.50K and same defendant 3. Rule: Thier right to recover rested on a breach of contract which is not a federal question.will assume good faith when bringing claim about example flowers worth 100k 1. . destroyed car) 2.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. punitive damage claim. 4. is sneaking and depending on federal law and disguise it as state law go ahead and READ federal law INTO IT. EVERY ARROW HAS TO SATISY FEDERAL JURISDICTION (Alapada Case) 1. Administrative regulations (OCC.how to defeat federal purpose 2. What is the citizenship of a corporation? 1.. Good Faith . Amount in Controvery 1.no state on both sides of equation 1. 4. Perry) . Constituion does not require complete diversity 1. 3. 5. 1. Have to have MORE than 75k in controversy and exclusive of interest and cost 1. If I describe lawsuit in federal court nad ask about jur.100k D 2. Means that if plan. Associations: citizenship of all of its members (non profit.Rule congress must have intended it to be in federal 4. DIVERSITY 1. 3 and then look to diversity or is it a federal question and what does it arive under (one of the 5). all plantiffs and defendants must be from different states .Review Brief 1. 2. prof assoc. 28 USC 1332 1. EXAMPLE: P . Domicile in a state 1. Citizenship Requirment (TEST) 1. Specific Federal Questions 3. phhysical presence and intent to remain indefinitly (Mas v. 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. partnerships. Mas would be a resident of Lous if permanet resident alien 2. International Law 3. Citizen of the United States 2.all the diffrent losses can aggregate (lost wages. . for each plantiff you can add all of the plantiff lost but cannot add it twice . What if congress says that you might not be able to sue in federal court. Strawbride Rule: complete diversity 1. TWO CITIZENSHIPS . and if my question is it properly in federal court (say something about art. Cannot aggreate different theroies for the same loss (breach of contract and fraud) 3. Well pleaded complaint rule 1. Legal Certainty Test . Treaties of the United States 2. Executive Orders 5. Merrill Doude Case . Motley Test 2. Supplemental jurisdiction might get us here as two seperate claims one qualifies and the other does not.2. IRS etc) 3. Federal Common Law 1.) 1.plantiffs right to recover must rest of federal question that is being interpreted 1.
U.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.September 23. 2008 Article III Title 28.competance .October 7.deciding on the merits . ALL FEDERAL COURTS ARE LIMITED JURISDCITION ( ex bankruptcy courts. 2008 Article III Title 28.C. 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.C.September 23. General v. . .competance . 2008 Chapter 4Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Limited Jurisdiction if a court is general juridcition it can hear everything unless tatute states that it cannot if court is limited juris. U. it cannot hear everything unless you can show that it has the power to hear that case. (Review Outline given by Prof) Civil Procedure .S.S. small claims courts) Civil Procedure . 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.Civil Procedure .
Limited Jurisdiction if a court is general juridcition it can hear everything unless tatute states that it cannot if court is limited juris. it cannot hear everything unless you can show that it has the power to hear that case. small claims courts) 10. 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.Note 1: Constituional Duty Some duty that arise under a notehr states or countries law there is a duty to hear those cases. ALL FEDERAL COURTS ARE LIMITED JURISDCITION ( ex bankruptcy courts. 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. 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? . 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.2.
the record before a court which raises the issue sua sponte without briefing will be insufficient for a court to meet this requirement.. the court raised sua sponte the issue of whether A. A. alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. DIVERSITY ACTION . F. F. the court dismissed. (P) appealed. Whitchurch (D). (P) was in the business of providing guided tours. (P) employee. SUA SPONTE . Reversed and remanded Notes MOUNT IN CONTROVERSY . In all but the most extreme situations. At a hearing. Tours. namely customer lists. F.An action taken by the court by its own motion and without the suggestion of one of the parties.000 or more. F. Inc.. A. a former A.. defendant has to show to legal certainty plantiff could not recover this amount to defeat jurisdiction.000 requires a somewhat detailed factual analysis. formed a competing company. Concluding it could not.An action commenced by a citizen of one state against a citizen of another state or against an alien.The value of a claim sought by a party to a law suit. 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. 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. Jurisdiction was based on diversity.'s (P) damages could meet the $50. Holding No. A. over which the federal court has jurisdiction. A. we take plantiffs word for it unless it is not in good faith. A. F. A. F. Course: Civil Procedure Case Name: Mas v. (P) has in fact suffered losses of at least $50. A. whether A. (P) filed an action in federal court. A.Facts ACTS: A. Perry Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: . which the court could not have done on the record before it. Here. Saint Paul Mercury Test: Good faith standard and well pleaded complaint means good faith standard.000 jurisdictional requirement. involving an amount in controversy of $10.
J. therefore. Holding HOLDING AND DECISION: (Ainsworth. 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. As a result. Thus. Mere residence in a state does not establish domicile for purposes for diversity jurisdiction. Mas (P) was a French citizen. they rented an apartment from Perry (D) and subsequently discovered he had used two-way mirrors to invade their privacy. Notes Students are inherently Domicilary . Mrs. and. While in Louisiana.) No. Mas was a citizen of Mississippi. Formerly. the Mases (P) had no fixed intent to remain in Louisiana.. Domicile is the true. After Mas (P) finished his education. Determining Citizenship. Mere residence in a state does not establish domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. permanent home and principle establishment of home base. complete diversity existed. contending they were citizens of Louisiana. Perry (D) appealed.Judge: Book Page: Last Update: 9/23/2008 7:34:00 PM Legal Concepts: Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Rule of Law 1. Mas's (P) education. have to live in a state. fixed. .intent to remain in that state Citizen of US and domicile in UK cannot bring suit under diversity. They sued in federal court on the basis of diversity and obtained a $20.000 judgment. they were unsure of where they would live. a lack of diversity existed. and Mrs. Affirmed. Mr. Mas (P) remained a French domiciliary. (Mas v. Mas (P) remained a Mississippi domiciliary and Mr. In this case.
1. 2008 Organize it in State courts by amount of damages. Notes Civil Procedure . (Lacks v. permanent home and principle establishment of home base. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts 11.2. 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. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Lacks v. Lacks 9/23/2008 7:20:50 PM Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts 1. Lacks) . 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. (look at plantiffs origional petition) 11. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts. fixed.September 23.Citizen of US domicle of State Test for Domicile: Domicile is the true.
Notes Civil Procedure . J.1. Affirmed. C.September 23. Lacks (D) moved to vacate her husband's (P) divorce judgment contending the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. There is no jurisdictional question present. The court's subject matter jurisdiction is statutory and is unquestionable in this case. . Organization of State Courts 12.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. The absence of a necessary element of the cause of action presents a different question than that concerning the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.) No. Notes 12. Holding (Breitel. 2008 District Court County Court at Law Justice/Small Claims Courts Municiple Courts All have subject Matter jurisdiction guidelines. 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.
2008 1.1. 2008 1. 2. United Mine Workers v. The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts—Supplemental Claims and Parties. Under pendent jurisdiction. 13. 1. 2. Pendent Jurisdiction 13.2. Absent extraordinary circumstances. Notes Civil Procedure .3. (Executive Software North America. 3.13. example: citizens of different states but only 50k 1.3.October 02. (United Mine Workers of America v. 2008 1. 1. § 1367(c)(1)-(c)(3) sets forth the exclusive circumstances under which a federal court may appropriately decline pendent jurisdiction. The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts—Supplemental Claims and Parties. Common Nucleus Of Facts Test 13. v. Inc. Ancillary Jurisdiction 13.1.October 02. 13.October 02. Supplemental Jurisdiction 13. Notes Civil Procedure .sets fourth have to articlualte one of those four grounds 2. Gibbs) .1. 28 U.1. United States District Court for the Central District of California) 1. federal courts may decide state issues which are closely related to the federal issues being litigated.1. Gibbs 1.2. 1367C . Notes Civil Procedure . C. 1. S.
Venue 13. Test: Common nuceuls of operative facts (more or less same facts) 1.mone.4. Notes Civil Procedure . Fedearl system broken up into districts .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. federal court could hear both 13.4.October 09. 2008 14.October 09. Venue is set by district. 2008 Idea of venue: -place where the trial is -within the state How does venue differ from personal jurisdiction? . Federal Venue is ocntroleld by Federal law. Notes Civil Procedure . Key word is: THE DISTRICT.Texas has four districts.2. 1. Forum Shopping . Where the subject of the action is situated local 2. Venue 14. Where the defendant resides Local v.personal juridistion looks at the state (minimum contacts) personal jurisidiction p. winning the case. Where the cause of action arose (where tort happened) transitory 3.1.. Transitory: .1. Three basic venue rules: 1.
(Hoffman v. Under 28 U. 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. C. . Local and Transitory Actions. 2. V.inconvient venue (Hoffman v. etc certain fact occurred or is part of the case. Transfer of Venue in Federal Courts. §1391 is GENERAL VENUE for Federal Venue Structure (need to have this read pretty well) 1406 is wrong venue statute 1404(a) . C&S Adjusters. Blaski 3. Venue is proper under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the district where an allegedly offending letter is received. S. § 1404(a).. Reyno) 1404 authorizes a transfer but there is not federal court in scotland to transfer it. v. (Bates v. (breach of contract.) Statory phrase dealing with is "substnatila part of where the events took place" .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. Inc. Reasor-Hill Corp. Venue in the Federal Courts. (Piper Aircraft Co. Inc. tort examples) Mandatory venue v.breach of contract transitory. but the land is in Miss. C & S Adjusters. and with counterclaim it is local and land is in Miss. Blaski) If defendant objects to wrong venue can onl move it to where is could have filed. v. Forum Non Conveniens. If a local action cannot be brought at the situs of the property because of lack of jurisdiction of the defendant. Specific Venuepatent claims.brings transitory calim in ark. (Reasor-Hill Corp. Permissive Venue Local is mandatory and other things are mandatory depending on the statute. Hoffman v. a federal court can only transfer a case to a court where the plaintiff could have originally brought the case. Harrison: 1. Court . been Piper Aircraft Co. Reyno 4. v. Blaski) and forum non conveniens Bates v. General venue v. the action may be brought in the state where the defendant resides. Harrison) It is a local venue action .
brought suit in California even though the location of the crash and the home of the victims were in Scotland.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.1. But under forum nonconveniens we cannot tell Scotland what law to apply. 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. Forum Non Conveniens 14. SAME FACTORS BUT THE TWO ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT 14. 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. 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.2. Forum non conveniens is a scotland common law in our legal system. 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.
even though the accident occurred and all the victims resided in Scotland.1. all the evidence. The district court granted the motion. 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. Piper (D) moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Notes Civil Procedure . witnesses. Notes The Court in this case specifically noted that under some circumstances. Thus.October 21. the most convenient forum was there. Holding No. Reyno (P) opposed the motion on the basis that the Scottish laws were less advantageous to her than American laws. QUICKNOTES FORUM NON CONVENIENS . then the motion may be denied. 15. and interests were in Scotland. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. As a result. 2008 . 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. Reversed. while the court of appeals reversed. Erie Doctrine / Ascertaining Applicable Law / Choice Of Law 15.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.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. In this case. the motion was properly granted. contending that Scotland was the proper forum. If the state chosen by the plaintiff has the only adequate remedy for the wrong alleged.
.Substantive v.one overlays the other. from Supreme Court for binding authority 2) Miss. whom wins the case.Horizontal choice of law. (Mason v. American Emery Wheel Works) In order to be federal question must arise under constituion. 2008 Mason Case: privity . torts. states statutes PERSUASSIVE AUTHORITY Persuasive: 1. Substantive law is like contracts. Erie doctorine is vertical (federal over state) . Lex locus delicti . Civil Procedure . Faced with state law question.manufactur 1.) 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. (other things under Farticle III etc) Federal Court follows that STATES CHOICE OF LAW RULE. Ascertaining the State Law.. etc..October 28.if you buy a product from someone and you can state a cause of action can sue ..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. Two kinds of choice of law that go on in any court: 1.side by side jurisdictions (different legal systems not overlapping) 2.the law of the place of the wrong . Procedural Law Forum laws governs its only procedure. CHOICE OF LAW Western Union Case .) Look to common law of Miss. 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.
Law of state with most signifigant relationship test(7 factor balancing test) will be the choice of law.these are choice of law tests.filed in Federal Court suing various defendants.say maybe texeas law but have to to this test...Supplemental Readings Court oes further.. 2008 Duncan v. Parent company in Maryland and principle place of business in Penn. . Texas. Distinction between rights and remedies Right was the obligation the duty/breach Rememdy was what ou got: money. goes on appeal to 5th Circuit. Anther party.October 30... However New Mexico law allows this.HOWEVER LES LOCUS DELICITI. Read Challoner for Thursday: Products liability.can argue where was manufactured...leave Lex Locus Delicti Facts: plane crash in New Mexico result is pilot and the plantiff's husband died. 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.. Brought action in Houston. When Elvis died Boxcar company liscened this to Factors Inc. injuction.this case is really a contract about a settlement. more like an international law case.... Pro Art tried to sell posters of his likeness and Factors sued for an injunction. Cessna wants NM law. Court decided to adopt restatement of conflict of law.place where wrong occurred so Cambodia law.there is diversity in this case and how ended up in federal court. Argument that just because Les Locus Delicti not just Cambodia law . on injured and the other one killed. and in Texas that is Les Locus Delicti . Deahs occureed in Cambodia. Civil Procedure . Remedies were governed by form law Rights are governed by where breach occurred.only settling with whom named.Place of wrong.. Texas choice of law rule is Lex Locus Contractus should rule (where the contract was made) Contract was made in Texas ... Victims from Wisc adn TN. Must do what a local state court would do... will see how the Texas Choice of Law rule is changed. . going to allow him to recover under universal law... For now on when faced with choice of law question not governed by agreement will use the above test.. Texas did away with the unity of release rule...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. Cessna Out of Federal Court. 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. Wife signs a release with Cessna.round manufactured in Texas. Idea was that estate owned likeness of Elvis. one from TN and one from Wisc.
Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Erie R. would be chosen because this is where the liscensed was given to Factors in probate court. 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. Now hae to figure out what Tenn. The choice of law rule in New York is signifigant contacts test. but case law as well. State law includes not only statutory law. 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. Choice of Law: Horizontal v. . law is and right now Tenn. Case filed in New York seeking the relief of injunction in NY. Vertical 15. Tompkins (P) was struck and injured by what he would. law does not have anything with rightness to likeness. at trial. where the posters were being sold. (Erie R.Court is faced with can someone other than Factors Inc. Co. market and make money off of his likeness. law would cover right of likeness therefore look to common law and there is no right to likeness law. Co v. 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. Therefore Tenn. state law governs substantive issues. v. No evidence that Tenn.2.
) Yes. 28 U. which held that federal courts exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship need not. More than statutory relief is involved here. The Court's opinion is in four parts: (1) Swift v. Tompkins (P) would have been regarded as a licensee and would only have been obligated to show ordinary negligence. unwritten as well as written. (16 Pet. Tyson. in matters of general jurisprudence. corporations. c. there was no satisfactory way to distinguish between local and general law. where he won a judgment for $30. Notes . local citizens could move out of the state and bring suit in federal court if they were disposed to do so. local citizens could move out of the state and bring suit in federal court if Furthermore. Reversed. 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. Under "general" law. the decision was affirmed.000. Swift introduced grave discrimination by noncitizens against citizens. 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. (3) Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress. Because Erie (D) was a New York corporation. (4) The federal district court was bound to follow the Pennsylvania case law which would have denied recovery to Tompkins (P). Furthermore. S. apply the unwritten law of the state as declared by its highest court. Section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. recognized in federal courts.claim to be an open door extending from one of the rail cars. federal courts had assumed the power to make "general law" decisions even though Congress was powerless to enact "general law" statutes. On the other hand. 2) Swift had numerous political and social defects. Tompkins (P) brought suit in a federal district court in New York. Upon appeal to a federal circuit court. J. could simply reincorporate in another state. The hoped-for uniformity among state courts had not occurred. similarly. Up to this time. There is no federal common law. The privilege of selecting the court for resolving disputes rested with the noncitizen who could pick the more favorable forum. § 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. 20. The resulting far-reaching discrimination was due to the broad province accorded "general law" in which many matters of seemingly local concern were included. is overruled. Holding Brandeis. the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. 41 U. the unconstitutionality of Swift is clear. S.) 1 (1842). Under Pennsylvania case law (the applicable law since the accident occurred there).
the federal court is bound by the state law. the substantive right is created by the state. Tompkins. 64 (1938). even though the suit be brought in equity. Supreme Court. and federal courts must respect state law which governs that right. As interpreted in subsequent decisions. While state law cannot define the remedies which a federal court must . Even though federal equity may be thought of as a separate legal system. 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. 304 U.EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: Erie can fairly be characterized as the most significant and sweeping decision on civil procedure ever handed down by the U. Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Guaranty Trust Co v. Co. Federal courts have traditionally given state-created rights in equity greater respect than rights in law. S. overruled a particular way of looking at law after its inadequacies had been laid bare. v. Note. S. issues of substantive law must be decided in accord with the applicable state law—usually the state in which the federal court sits. however. Erie R. 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. Issue Does a state statue of limitations. which would bar a suit in state court. since the former are more frequently defined by legislative enactment. how later Supreme Court decisions have made inroads into the broad doctrine enunciated here. Erie held that while federal courts may apply their own rules of procedure.
only another court of the state. the outcome notwithstanding. Reversed and remanded. Notes Guaranty Trust. The question is not whether a statute of limitation is "procedural. Through diversity jurisdiction. it cannot afford recovery if the right to recovery is made unavailable by the state. may itself be in the process of being slowly eroded by modern courts. the result should not be any different in a federal court extending jurisdiction solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship. It is. the Court suggested that some constitutional doctrines (there. since the federal court is adjudicating a state-created right solely because of diversity of citizenship of the parties it is. and procedure. a federal court may afford an equitable remedy for a substantive right recognized by a state even though a state court cannot give it. immaterial to make a "substantive-procedure" dichotomy—Erie R. v. Blue Ridge Elec. S. held that where state law conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cooperative. Matters of "substance" and of "procedure" turn on different considerations. Co. 525 (1958). therefore. Hanna v. Here. Federal courts enforce state-created substantive rights if the mode of proceeding and remedy were consonant with the traditional body of equitable remedies. Tompkins was not an endeavor to formulate scientific legal terminology. practice. And in Byrd v. Erie insures that insofar as legal rules determine the outcome of litigation. in effect. S. the right to a jury trial in federal court) are so important as to be controlling over state law—once again. which clarified Erie. Plumer. and not another body of law. the latter prevails regardless of the effect on outcome of the litigation. Congress meant to afford out-of-state litigants another tribunal. but rather an expression of a policy that touches the distribution of judicial power between state and federal courts.give simply because a federal court in diversity jurisdiction is available as an alternative. Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Mason v. 356 U. Emery 10/28/2008 6:49:59 PM Erie Doctrine / Ascertaining Applicable Law / Choice Of Law . 380 U." but whether the statute so affects the result of litigation as to be controlling in state law. 460 (1965).
the decision appears to have lost its vitality. 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. (Mason v. C. J. there has been a major shift in products liability law since 1928. It must search through other state precedent to rule on an issue. not every issue that comes before a federal court sitting in diversity will have been ruled upon by a state supreme court.) No. Tyson Case Date: Citation: . a pronouncement of a state supreme court will be final on a given issue. 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. Here.1. however. When this occurs. This is borne out by dicta in at least one case indicating dissatisfaction with the 1928 precedent. Course: Civil Procedure Case Name: Swift v. Notes EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: Obviously. it seems relatively clear that the true state of the law in Mississippi is not to require contractual privity. and it is unlikely that the Mississippi Supreme Court would follow its own precedent. even if that ruling has lost its vitality? Facts Holding HOLDING AND DECISION: (Magruder. Generally speaking. There is no question but that a federal court sitting in diversity must follow state law. the role of a federal court becomes much like a state trial court. it is up to the district court to try to decide how the state court would rule on that issue today. American Emery Wheel Works) Issue ISSUE: Must a state supreme court ruling on an issue be followed by a federal court sitting in diversity. In light of this. The order of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Ascertaining the State Law. Where.
1652 federal court apply state law excepet where Congress says other wise....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.someone whom gave consideration Federal Court about rights on a holder in due course being enforced.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.if no federal law on point then even in federal court you apply state law.. . New York law was going to govern. Which State? Swift v.C. 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.S.