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
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: ..• • 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.
a foreign corporation. Allen Ashcraft. To manufacture and knowledge that it is being used elsewhere court states that is enough (OK under Ill law) . 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. of Comm. J. Klingbiel... 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. Cook County. o Rule: Court comes up with term “STREAM OF COMMERCE” o If a defendant places their product in St. moved for dismissal of the complaint and the cross-claim filed against it.. 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. dismissed both the complaint and the cross-claim and the plintiff appealed. held that the foreign corporation. wherein one defendant. The Circuit 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.
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? ← • . Seaway Volkswagon in NY. causing a fire which severely burned Resp’s wife and two children. defendant suing trail judge. The following year they left NY for a new home in AZ.. (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. ← ← Legal Issue(s): Whether corporate Dfs. who carried on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma and availed themselves of no privileges or benefits of Oklahoma law. Woodson (1980) Mandamous Case: like an appeal. As they passed through OK another car struck their Audi in the rear. automobile wholesaler and retailer.apeal during the case filed in the supreme court of the state to make the judge change his ruling..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. ← ← ← Relevant Facts: Resp. purchases a new Audi from Pet.
← ← Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner does not do business in OK. has no sales. P. or relations w/ the State of 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. If the sale of a product is not simply an isolated occurrence. Pet have no contact. ties. ← ← 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. or retail offices. Ok S. ← . Reversed ← ← Law or Rule(s): Due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment limits power of state court to render valid personal judgment against nonresident defendant. State court may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between defendant and forum state. Petitioners carry on no activity in OK whatsoever. They solicit no business there either through salespersons or advertising. It is foreseeable that autos sold by WWV and Seaway may take them to OK. But foreseeability applies to a dfs conduct and connection w/ the forum State such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into ct. 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. Pet does not have any contact with OK at all. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of Ok law. 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. Pets appealed. Foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the D. OK. salesmen.← Court’s Holding: No ← ← Procedure: Tr ct ruling for Resp. They close no sales and perform no service there. agents. there.
and the trial can proceed at least as efficiently in OK as anywhere else." ← ← 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. It is not that the dealer foresees that they will move. 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. v. 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. .” ← ← 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. ties. to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there. The petitioners are not unconnected with the forum state. Essential witnesses and evidence were in OK. Each sold the auto which in fact was driven in OK where it was involved in an accident. or relations. and the relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is "reasonable ." 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. Ruzewicz ← ← Facts ← . The Pl were hospitalized in OK when they brought suit. The accident occurred in OK. . The State has a legitimate interest in enforcing its laws designed to keep its highway system safe.← DISSENT: The interest of the forum State and its connection to the litigation is strong.
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. The two defendants would pay their franchise fees and royalties to Burger King's Florida headquarters. to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants would be fundamentally unfair and thus violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. ← ←  Dissent ← ← In dissent. Rudzewicz could not have anticipated being summoned into court in Florida. The defendants were unable to make their monthly payments to Burger King. Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Rudzewicz had never been to Florida and had no business established in Florida. Burger King then appealed to the Supreme Court. subject to jurisdiction there. therefore. ← ←  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. . ← ←  Holding ← ← The Supreme Court concluded that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the protections of the forum state (Florida) and were. 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. ← ← NOTES: • Court found that he purposefully availed himself to Fl law.← Two Michigan residents (John Rudzewicz and Brian MacShara. 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.
best evidence of state interest is Florida statutes. 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. Difference between choice of law and choice of forum clause • Forum clause sets the forum in which the lawsuit will occur. Significantly different. 5) Judicial Systems Interest if all other factors are equal lets pick a fair site and not burden the overall system.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. Stream of Commerce did not apply FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TEST o Factors: (balancing test) 1) Burden on defendant economic.• • • 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. physical evidence location. • 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. 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. ability to subpoena witnesses’. 2) Plaintiff’s Interest convient and effective relief.. same type of burden as above. Poloski drive into state) .
v. ← • • ← Waiver. reversed and dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction. Hall ← ← Wrongful death action was instituted in a Texas state court against a Colombian corporation and others. Justice Blackmun.. 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.2d 870. Denying Colombian corporation's motion to dismiss actions for lack of in personam jurisdiction over it. 616 S. ← ← Texas Supreme Court judgment reversed. Heard. Harris County. entered judgment against corporation on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. Phyllis J. Caddy ← ← Background: Operator of “Pebble Beach” golf resort brought trademark infringement and trademark dilution action against operator of a British bed and breakfast. the District Court. Circuit Judge. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals. The Texas Supreme Court. Wyatt H. Hamilton.. granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. and plaintiff appealed. held that Colombian corporation's contacts with Texas. J. held that: .2d 247. and plaintiffs appealed. which consisted of one trip to Texas by corporation's chief executive officer for purpose of negotiating transportation services contract. ← ← ← Pebble Beach CO. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California. J.W.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. ← ← ← Holdings: The Court of Appeals. Trott. The Supreme Court. and purchases of helicopters and equipment from Texas manufacturer and related training trips. Superior Court • ← ← Helioteros v. Corporation appealed. reversed. acceptance of checks drawn on Texas bank. 638 S. Certiorari was granted. ← ← Justice Brennan dissented and filed an opinion.W.
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. that such conduct could give rise to litigation in that forum. and thus were insufficient to subject him to personal jurisdiction there. or could reasonably expect.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.The minimum degree of contact necessary in order to sustain a cause of action within a particular forum.← (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 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 . Court of Registration ← ← QUICKNOTES MINIMUM CONTACTS . PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT . consistent with the requirements of due process. PERSONAL JURISDICTION . ← • 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.
. negihbor to give to person.1. Actual Notice = bad service Ex.September 11. Notes Civil Procedure .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 .2.1. Service Of Process 2.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.1. Service On Corporations 2.2. Matter Juris Ch 5: Venue Ch 6: What law applies 2. 2.September 11.October 21. 2008 Can service to a corp permitting the delivery of process to an officer or director of the corporation or agent of serving process. 2008 Have to make three good faith attempts and then get substitute service (get to name someone else employer. 2008 Ch 2: Personal Jurisdiction Ch 3: Notice Ch 4: Sub. Substituted Service 2. .1. Notes Civil Procedure .
3. Waiver 4(d)2 3. Civ. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Civil Procedure MD State Firemans Assoc v..3.. If you fail to return this we will send service person.Personal notice 2.September 11.talks about Waiver. (Maryland State Firemen's Association v.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.P. Chaves) Fed R. (Godo thing saves money and time) THE MERE FACT THAT THEY RECIEVED THE WAIVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY GOT NOTICE. substituted service 4. Request For Rule of Law Specific Applications of the Service Provisions. 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. 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. Notes Civil Procedure .you send a copy of the suit and a waiver form. .2. 2008 1. no service but filed the suit.u return this and you have effictvly waived service of process. Mechanics of Giving Notice 3.1. 4(d)2 .
. Notes Civil Procedure . Notes Civil Procedure .(international court of justice) . 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.old common law method . return of service 5. service on people of foreign countries 4. The Hauge Convention .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.September 11.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.Issue What was the problem of giving service? Facts Holding Notes Rule 4(e) Process server yells fire. 4. Letters Rogatory .1. 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. 2008 .
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 printed lease provided that Szukhent (D) designated Weinberg as agent to accept service of process in New York. Weinberg was served. an agent authorized by appointment? Facts FACT SUMMARY: Szukhent (D) leased farm equipment from National (P). Ltd. Service of an Agent 6.. Ruling was that you have to trust the thing in the record . V. 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. and she mailed the summons to Szukhent (D). Holding .1.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.. Szukhent) Issue ISSUE: Is a person. (National Equipment Rental. 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. 6.
(Shaffer v. Notes You can contract away your agent for service of process. 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.1.1. 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. Ownership Of Property. Hence. Here. to permit notice to be served by the opposing party. Jurisdiction Over The Parties / Personal Jurisdiction / In Personam Jurisdiction 7. R. P. 4(e)(2). Parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court. the fact that Szukhent (D) did not know her is irrelevant. This case does not involve a due process problem since Szukhent (D) did. 2008 Shaffer v. or to waive notice altogether. Here. Based On 7. receive timely and complete notice. Heitner: 1.1. Further.September 09. in fact.) Yes. the purpose underlying the provision designating Weinberg was to assure that any litigation under the lease would be conducted in New York. Weinberg was appointed Szukhent's (D) agent for the single purpose of receiving service of process. prompt notice to Szukhent (D) having been given. H OLDING AND 7. Civ. An agent with such limited authority can in no meaningful sense be deemed to have an interest antagonistic to Szukhent (D). Jurisdiction Based Upon Power over Property. Weinberg was his agent authorized by appointment to receive process within the meaning of Fed. J.DECISION: (Stewart. Heitner) . Notes Civil Procedure . Reversed and remanded.
Burnham v.talks about Waiver. .P.2. Federal Actions 7. 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. Civ.2. Request For Rule of Law Specific Applications of the Service Provisions. (Maryland State Firemen's Association v.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.2. Notes Civil Procedure . Chaves) Fed R. Limited by Due Process 184.108.40.206. Request For 7.1. 4(d)2 .1. Waiver Of Formal Service. 2008 1. Amenability To Suit 7. Long Arm (Forum State Law sets standard) 2.2.September 11. Superior Court (DO!!!) Carnival Cruise Lines (DO!!) 7.
u return this and you have effictvly waived service of process.you send a copy of the suit and a waiver form. (Godo thing saves money and time) THE MERE FACT THAT THEY RECIEVED THE WAIVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY GOT NOTICE.. Corporations. If you fail to return this we will send service person.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. 2008 1.September 09. 2008 See Mulane brief Blancing Test Civil Procedure .1.1.no service but filed the suit.September 11. Generally 8. Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard 8. Forum law . Notes Civil Procedure .. 7. Issue What was the problem of giving service? Facts Holding Notes Rule 4(e) Process server yells fire.3.1.. Notice Requirement 8.
i.g.S. 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. There.1. Court held that publication is not enough to give notice but must be supplemented by notice mailes to the mortgagees las tknown avalible address. and the availability of names and addresses of beneficiaries. if its name and address are "reasonably ascertainable. declined to determine whether the case was in rem or in personam. 791 (1983). Reasonableness standard: "The means [of notice] employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. Instead. Publication 8." Instead. availability of other. Holding: The Court held that the expense of notification by mail.2.1.1. Notes Civil Procedure . 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. must be used. cost. the standard is becoming one of general reasonableness in view of all the circumstances (e. or by perosnal service. Note Case: Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams: Public notification of sale of real property due to mortagee not paying taxes.). 2008 c. 462 U. Adams. notice by mail or other means equally likely to insure actual notice. Limited by Due Process 8. etc. better." But this may be limited by reasonable considerations of economy. the Court held that publication notice will not suffice as to any party having any liberty or property interest in the controversy. Basis for jurisdiction not stated: Mullane. Similarly. importance of proceedings. Instead.September 09. . were factors that could be taken into account in determining whether publication was sufficient notice.2.2. b. in determining what constituted reasonable notice. notification methods.
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. and. those conditions are reasonably met. Summary: So the Mullane "reasonableness" test probably survives today. but if. 8. and the notice must be of such nature that it reasonably conveys the required information. with due regard for practicalities and peculiarities of the case. where they reside outside of the state and their names and addresses are available.A.C. better calculated to give actual notice. In the "reasonably ascertainable" situation.OVERALL REGARDING PUBLICATION: b.2. notice by mail or other personalized means must be used. and must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.2. but only as a very general principle.Amend. is available? .1. U. Const.S. notice must be by means calculated to inform the desired parties. 14. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Mullane v. 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. the constitutional requirements are satisfied. 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. even if its cost is very high relative to the interest at stake. 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.
Notice of accountings was by publication in a local New York newspaper. it is not readily calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand. Notice of the common fund was sent to all interested parties along with the relevant portions of the statute. Publication is only a supplemental method of giving notice. 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. Notice by publication was not a reasonable method of informing interested parties that their rights were being affected. J. and assets were to be submitted to the courts for approval. the method chosen should. not because it. Once approved by the court. Where alternative methods. In cases where the identity or whereabouts of beneficiaries or future interest holders is unknown. it must also provide beneficiaries with adequate notice so that their rights to contest the accounting are not lost. then publication is the most viable alternate means available for giving notice. Mullane (D) was the appointed guardian for all parties known and unknown who had an interest in the trust's income. Each participating trust shared ratably in the common fund. The purpose of a notice requirement is to inform parties that their rights are being affected. While the state has a right to discharge trustees of their liabilities through the acceptance of their accounting. the court will approve its use where alternative methods are not reasonably possible or practical.) No. in fact. but. at least potentially. publication is an impermissible means of providing notice. Notice in a New York legal paper is not reasonably calculated to provide out-of-state residents with the desired information. but the trustees held complete control of all assets. Since publication to known beneficiaries is ineffective. publication is permissible. because under the circumstances. Central Hanover Bank (P) established a common fund by consolidating the corpus of 113 separate trusts under their control. losses. . the statutory requirement violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Reversed. Therefore. Notice to known beneficiaries via publication is inadequate. be deprived of property without due process of law. With respect to remote future interest holders and unknown parties. However. This allowed more efficient and economical administration of the funds. A periodic accounting of profits. especially with regard to out-of-state beneficiaries. better calculated to give actual notice. These parties have.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. their claims would be barred. Mullane's (D) objections were overruled in state courts and the prese Holding (Jackson. if at all possible. Beneficiaries were to be notified of the accounting so that they might object to any irregularities in the administration of the common fund. are available. be reasonably designed to accomplish this end.
2008 Origional v. limited 9. Appellate jurisdiction Mandamous . The United States Supreme Court under Srticle 3 have origional jurisdiction in cases of disputes versus states. Collection v.2. Ever single court will have one of these 3 things: Origional v.1. concurrent general v. If the admin of the esate as aware there were outstanding bills you had to mail the notice of the deceased to the coll. Federal Question Jurisdiction . 8. Pope Notice of probate is generally publication of debt. (exclusive/origional jurisdcition/ and the court is limited juridction) As well lawsuits against ambassadors. Opportunity To Be Heard 9.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.2. Pizzutti Non resident motors Note 5: Tulsa Proff. Subject-matter Jurisdiction 9. appellate Exclusive v. Notes Civil Procedure . agency of the bill instead of just publishing.Notes Note 3: Wuchter v.September 23.
Basic authoirty for diversity jurisdiction 3.1.October 02.1. 3 2. Constition 2. sets path for subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction III.new claim must form part of the same case or controversy 1. any party . Notes Civil Procedure . Diversity 1. Federal Statutes . against any other party or new party as long as related to fed. must have supreme court and may have federal courts II. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction 10. question 2. ex Tx ag NY 100K claim.9.October 02.Erie Doctorine Chapter Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Outline (handout) 1. Supp. any claim. Article 3 I. 1. Notes Civil Procedure .1. Cases or controverses (dont worry about) authoirty of 9 or 10 cases/conroversies 1. 2008 1.federal question 1.1. Congressional Contol of Federal Courts 1. Forms on ingrediant . Federal Question 1. Case associated with: Osborne v. TEST FOR RELATED: Common Nucleus of Facts Test . Dollar Amount: has nothing about dollar amount in conroversy in Art. any defendant can bring any claim against any exisiting or new party .2. have to have a claim that arises under: 1.2. Federal Law 1. Supplemental Jurisdiction 9. Bank of United States I. If primary claim is a diversity claim. Diversity Jurisdiction 1. Congress has the power to restrict the power of the federal courts: 75k barrier to get into Fed court set by congress 2. 28 USC § 1331 2. Jurisdiction (have to have either federal question or diversity) 1. 2008 -Supplemental Readings . General Federal Questions 1. Federal Question 1.as long as related to claim 10.
Rule congress must have intended it to be in federal 4. Constituion does not require complete diversity 1.. for each plantiff you can add all of the plantiff lost but cannot add it twice . 4.. Motley Test 2. Executive Orders 5. Domicile in a state 1. 3. all plantiffs and defendants must be from different states . Citizen of the United States 2. Rule: Thier right to recover rested on a breach of contract which is not a federal question. 28 USC 1332 1.) 1. Perry) . IRS etc) 3. partnerships. Mas would be a resident of Lous if permanet resident alien 2. TWO CITIZENSHIPS . . 2. Supplemental jurisdiction might get us here as two seperate claims one qualifies and the other does not. and if my question is it properly in federal court (say something about art.will assume good faith when bringing claim about example flowers worth 100k 1. punitive damage claim.2. Legal Certainty Test . Associations: citizenship of all of its members (non profit. EXAMPLE: P .state of corporation and principle place of business 3. Amount in Controvery 1. Specific Federal Questions 3. 1. is sneaking and depending on federal law and disguise it as state law go ahead and READ federal law INTO IT. Strawbride Rule: complete diversity 1. Federal Common Law 1. Have to have MORE than 75k in controversy and exclusive of interest and cost 1. Treaties of the United States 2. destroyed car) 2. What if congress says that you might not be able to sue in federal court.Review Brief 1. Administrative regulations (OCC. phhysical presence and intent to remain indefinitly (Mas v. Good Faith . International Law 3. 4. prof assoc. Merrill Doude Case .no state on both sides of equation 1.100k D 2. EVERY ARROW HAS TO SATISY FEDERAL JURISDICTION (Alapada Case) 1.how to defeat federal purpose 2. Well pleaded complaint rule 1. 3 and then look to diversity or is it a federal question and what does it arive under (one of the 5).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. If I describe lawsuit in federal court nad ask about jur. DIVERSITY 1. Means that if plan. What is the citizenship of a corporation? 1. 5.50K and same defendant 3.all the diffrent losses can aggregate (lost wages. .plantiffs right to recover must rest of federal question that is being interpreted 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. Cannot aggreate different theroies for the same loss (breach of contract and fraud) 3. Citizenship Requirment (TEST) 1.
ALL FEDERAL COURTS ARE LIMITED JURISDCITION ( ex bankruptcy courts. Limited Jurisdiction if a court is general juridcition it can hear everything unless tatute states that it cannot if court is limited juris.C. (Review Outline given by Prof) Civil Procedure . 2008 Article III Title 28. General v.competance . 2008 Article III Title 28. 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. 2008 Chapter 4Subject Matter Jurisdiction.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.S.Civil Procedure .October 7. . 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.September 23. U. U.competance .deciding on the merits . .S. small claims courts) Civil Procedure .C. it cannot hear everything unless you can show that it has the power to hear that case.September 23.
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. ALL FEDERAL COURTS ARE LIMITED JURISDCITION ( ex bankruptcy courts. 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.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? . General v. 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 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.2.
alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. Jurisdiction was based on diversity. (P) employee. we take plantiffs word for it unless it is not in good faith.. the court raised sua sponte the issue of whether A. Holding No. 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. F. DIVERSITY ACTION . Course: Civil Procedure Case Name: Mas v. the court dismissed. A. A. (P) appealed. namely customer lists.. Reversed and remanded Notes MOUNT IN CONTROVERSY . F. whether A. A.Facts ACTS: A. Inc. (P) filed an action in federal court. formed a competing company. defendant has to show to legal certainty plantiff could not recover this amount to defeat jurisdiction. (P) was in the business of providing guided tours. Concluding it could not. F. At a hearing. A. which the court could not have done on the record before it. 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. involving an amount in controversy of $10. A. Here. SUA SPONTE . A.. Tours. Whitchurch (D).The value of a claim sought by a party to a law suit.000 jurisdictional requirement. A. Perry Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: . F.000 or more. the record before a court which raises the issue sua sponte without briefing will be insufficient for a court to meet this requirement. Saint Paul Mercury Test: Good faith standard and well pleaded complaint means good faith standard.000 requires a somewhat detailed factual analysis. over which the federal court has jurisdiction. In all but the most extreme situations. (P) has in fact suffered losses of at least $50. a former A. A.An action commenced by a citizen of one state against a citizen of another state or against an alien. F.An action taken by the court by its own motion and without the suggestion of one of the parties. F.'s (P) damages could meet the $50.
Mr. the Mases (P) had no fixed intent to remain in Louisiana. They sued in federal court on the basis of diversity and obtained a $20.Judge: Book Page: Last Update: 9/23/2008 7:34:00 PM Legal Concepts: Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Rule of Law 1. Mas (P) remained a Mississippi domiciliary and Mr. have to live in a state. Determining Citizenship. Mere residence in a state does not establish domicile for purposes for diversity jurisdiction. . Perry (D) appealed. Mas's (P) education. they were unsure of where they would live. Affirmed.) No. Mrs. While in Louisiana. Mere residence in a state does not establish domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Domicile is the true..000 judgment. (Mas v. Thus. Notes Students are inherently Domicilary . and Mrs. In this case. they rented an apartment from Perry (D) and subsequently discovered he had used two-way mirrors to invade their privacy.intent to remain in that state Citizen of US and domicile in UK cannot bring suit under diversity. After Mas (P) finished his education. Mas (P) was a French citizen. Holding HOLDING AND DECISION: (Ainsworth. fixed. permanent home and principle establishment of home base. complete diversity existed. Mas was a citizen of Mississippi. contending they were citizens of Louisiana. Formerly. a lack of diversity existed. and. Mas (P) remained a French domiciliary. J. As a result. 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. therefore.
fixed. 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. permanent home and principle establishment of home base.September 23. (Lacks v. 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. (look at plantiffs origional petition) 11. Lacks) . Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts 11. Lacks 9/23/2008 7:20:50 PM Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts.Citizen of US domicle of State Test for Domicile: Domicile is the true. Notes Civil Procedure . Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Lacks v.1. 2008 Organize it in State courts by amount of damages.2.
1. Organization of State Courts 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. There is no jurisdictional question present. Lacks (D) moved to vacate her husband's (P) divorce judgment contending the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Holding (Breitel. 2008 District Court County Court at Law Justice/Small Claims Courts Municiple Courts All have subject Matter jurisdiction guidelines. J. Affirmed.September 23. Notes 12. 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. C. Notes Civil Procedure . The court's subject matter jurisdiction is statutory and is unquestionable in this case.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.
2008 1. 1. Absent extraordinary circumstances. Notes Civil Procedure .October 02.sets fourth have to articlualte one of those four grounds 2.1. (United Mine Workers of America v.1. 13. 1.2. Pendent Jurisdiction 13. 28 U. 3. 1. The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts—Supplemental Claims and Parties. The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts—Supplemental Claims and Parties. 2. 13.1.October 02. Notes Civil Procedure .3. v. Gibbs 1. 1367C . United States District Court for the Central District of California) 1. S. § 1367(c)(1)-(c)(3) sets forth the exclusive circumstances under which a federal court may appropriately decline pendent jurisdiction. 2008 1.13. federal courts may decide state issues which are closely related to the federal issues being litigated. Gibbs) . Ancillary Jurisdiction 13. Under pendent jurisdiction.1. C.October 02. Supplemental Jurisdiction 13. (Executive Software North America. United Mine Workers v. 2. 2008 1. Common Nucleus Of Facts Test 13.2.1. example: citizens of different states but only 50k 1. Inc. Notes Civil Procedure .3.
Test: Common nuceuls of operative facts (more or less same facts) 1.Texas has four districts. Federal Venue is ocntroleld by Federal law.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.1.4. Key word is: THE DISTRICT.4. Notes Civil Procedure .October 09. Where the cause of action arose (where tort happened) transitory 3.mone. federal court could hear both 13. winning the case. Venue 13.1. Notes Civil Procedure .personal juridistion looks at the state (minimum contacts) personal jurisidiction p.2. Venue is set by district. Fedearl system broken up into districts . Venue 14.. Three basic venue rules: 1. Forum Shopping . Where the subject of the action is situated local 2.October 09. 1. Transitory: . Where the defendant resides Local v. 2008 14. 2008 Idea of venue: -place where the trial is -within the state How does venue differ from personal jurisdiction? .
v. Harrison: 1. Reyno 4. a federal court can only transfer a case to a court where the plaintiff could have originally brought the case. (Hoffman v. Local and Transitory Actions. Permissive Venue Local is mandatory and other things are mandatory depending on the statute. Hoffman v. Inc.. C. Court . tort examples) Mandatory venue v. Venue in the Federal Courts. v. Reyno) 1404 authorizes a transfer but there is not federal court in scotland to transfer it.breach of contract transitory. Under 28 U. S. If a local action cannot be brought at the situs of the property because of lack of jurisdiction of the defendant. C&S Adjusters. (Piper Aircraft Co. Blaski) and forum non conveniens Bates v. Blaski) If defendant objects to wrong venue can onl move it to where is could have filed. but the land is in Miss. 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.inconvient venue (Hoffman v. Blaski 3.) Statory phrase dealing with is "substnatila part of where the events took place" . Specific Venuepatent claims. §1391 is GENERAL VENUE for Federal Venue Structure (need to have this read pretty well) 1406 is wrong venue statute 1404(a) . 2. . Inc. the action may be brought in the state where the defendant resides. been Piper Aircraft Co.brings transitory calim in ark. v. Reasor-Hill Corp. C & S Adjusters. (Bates v. (breach of contract. V. etc certain fact occurred or is part of the case.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. Harrison) It is a local venue action . Venue is proper under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the district where an allegedly offending letter is received. General venue v. Transfer of Venue in Federal Courts. Forum Non Conveniens. (Reasor-Hill Corp. § 1404(a). and with counterclaim it is local and land is in Miss.
1. the representative of five victims of an air crash. Forum non conveniens is a scotland common law in our legal system. 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). 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. But under forum nonconveniens we cannot tell Scotland what law to apply.2. SAME FACTORS BUT THE TWO ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT 14.2. brought suit in California even though the location of the crash and the home of the victims were in Scotland. Forum Non Conveniens 14. . 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. 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: 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.
Notes Civil Procedure . In this case. the most convenient forum was there. 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. The district court granted the motion. contending that Scotland was the proper forum. Reyno (P) opposed the motion on the basis that the Scottish laws were less advantageous to her than American laws. Reversed.October 21.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. witnesses. As a result. 15. while the court of appeals reversed. Piper (D) moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens. 2008 . The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Thus. 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.1. QUICKNOTES FORUM NON CONVENIENS . Holding No. Notes The Court in this case specifically noted that under some circumstances.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. then the motion may be denied. and interests were in Scotland. even though the accident occurred and all the victims resided in Scotland. all the evidence. the motion was properly granted. 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.
side by side jurisdictions (different legal systems not overlapping) 2.. CHOICE OF LAW Western Union Case . whom wins the case. (Mason v. Lex locus delicti .Horizontal choice of law.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. 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. Procedural Law Forum laws governs its only procedure. American Emery Wheel Works) In order to be federal question must arise under constituion. Two kinds of choice of law that go on in any court: 1... from Supreme Court for binding authority 2) Miss.the law of the place of the wrong . (other things under Farticle III etc) Federal Court follows that STATES CHOICE OF LAW RULE.if you buy a product from someone and you can state a cause of action can sue .) 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. Substantive law is like contracts. etc. Civil Procedure .one overlays the other.. 2008 Mason Case: privity . Faced with state law question. Ascertaining the State Law.) Look to common law of Miss.Substantive v. states statutes PERSUASSIVE AUTHORITY Persuasive: 1. torts.October 28. Erie doctorine is vertical (federal over state) .manufactur 1.
. Parent company in Maryland and principle place of business in Penn..... . Cessna Out of Federal Court. Idea was that estate owned likeness of Elvis.round manufactured in Texas..filed in Federal Court suing various defendants. Victims from Wisc adn TN... However New Mexico law allows this.place where wrong occurred so Cambodia law. on injured and the other one killed. Texas choice of law rule is Lex Locus Contractus should rule (where the contract was made) Contract was made in Texas .say maybe texeas law but have to to this test. Texas did away with the unity of release rule. Brought action in Houston..Place of wrong..October 30. For now on when faced with choice of law question not governed by agreement will use the above test. Anther party.. Remedies were governed by form law Rights are governed by where breach occurred. Law of state with most signifigant relationship test(7 factor balancing test) will be the choice of law. Civil Procedure .there is diversity in this case and how ended up in federal court.Supplemental Readings Court oes further... Read Challoner for Thursday: Products liability. Texas.only settling with whom named. and in Texas that is Les Locus Delicti . Distinction between rights and remedies Right was the obligation the duty/breach Rememdy was what ou got: money. Cessna wants NM law. 2008 Duncan v. .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. injuction. Deahs occureed in Cambodia.. Wife signs a release with Cessna. Must do what a local state court would do. goes on appeal to 5th Circuit.these are choice of law tests.leave Lex Locus Delicti Facts: plane crash in New Mexico result is pilot and the plantiff's husband died. more like an international law case.this case is really a contract about a settlement... When Elvis died Boxcar company liscened this to Factors Inc.. going to allow him to recover under universal law.. one from TN and one from Wisc.. 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. Pro Art tried to sell posters of his likeness and Factors sued for an injunction. Argument that just because Les Locus Delicti not just Cambodia law ... will see how the Texas Choice of Law rule is changed... Court decided to adopt restatement of conflict of law.HOWEVER LES LOCUS DELICITI. 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.can argue where was manufactured. 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 .
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. but case law as well. . market and make money off of his likeness. No evidence that Tenn. Co. 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. Case Briefs Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Erie R. (Erie R.Court is faced with can someone other than Factors Inc. v.2. Tompkins (P) was struck and injured by what he would. law does not have anything with rightness to likeness. The choice of law rule in New York is signifigant contacts test. law would cover right of likeness therefore look to common law and there is no right to likeness law. Co v. State law includes not only statutory law. where the posters were being sold. Vertical 15. Now hae to figure out what Tenn. law is and right now Tenn. Case filed in New York seeking the relief of injunction in NY. 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. state law governs substantive issues. at trial. Therefore Tenn.
which held that federal courts exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship need not. Tompkins (P) would have been regarded as a licensee and would only have been obligated to show ordinary negligence. The resulting far-reaching discrimination was due to the broad province accorded "general law" in which many matters of seemingly local concern were included.claim to be an open door extending from one of the rail cars. Under "general" law. Up to this time. local citizens could move out of the state and bring suit in federal court if Furthermore. 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. Under Pennsylvania case law (the applicable law since the accident occurred there). Tyson. 28 U. Furthermore. S. 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. the decision was affirmed. (4) The federal district court was bound to follow the Pennsylvania case law which would have denied recovery to Tompkins (P).) Yes. the unconstitutionality of Swift is clear. recognized in federal courts. is overruled. The privilege of selecting the court for resolving disputes rested with the noncitizen who could pick the more favorable forum. S. could simply reincorporate in another state. where he won a judgment for $30. (16 Pet. similarly.000. in matters of general jurisprudence. There is no federal common law. Reversed. Notes . unwritten as well as written. 2) Swift had numerous political and social defects. Upon appeal to a federal circuit court. (3) Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress. Tompkins (P) brought suit in a federal district court in New York. local citizens could move out of the state and bring suit in federal court if they were disposed to do so. there was no satisfactory way to distinguish between local and general law.) 1 (1842). Because Erie (D) was a New York corporation. More than statutory relief is involved here. Holding Brandeis. corporations. c. the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. 20. On the other hand. Swift introduced grave discrimination by noncitizens against citizens. J. federal courts had assumed the power to make "general law" decisions even though Congress was powerless to enact "general law" statutes. 41 U. Section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. apply the unwritten law of the state as declared by its highest court. The hoped-for uniformity among state courts had not occurred. § 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. The Court's opinion is in four parts: (1) Swift v.
issues of substantive law must be decided in accord with the applicable state law—usually the state in which the federal court sits. Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Guaranty Trust Co v. even though the suit be brought in equity.EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: Erie can fairly be characterized as the most significant and sweeping decision on civil procedure ever handed down by the U. however. Co. and federal courts must respect state law which governs that right. Issue Does a state statue of limitations. As interpreted in subsequent decisions. since the former are more frequently defined by legislative enactment. Federal courts have traditionally given state-created rights in equity greater respect than rights in law. Tompkins. Erie R. the federal court is bound by the state law. which would bar a suit in state court. overruled a particular way of looking at law after its inadequacies had been laid bare. While state law cannot define the remedies which a federal court must . Supreme Court. v. Erie held that while federal courts may apply their own rules of procedure. 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. S. Note. 304 U. 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. S. the substantive right is created by the state. Even though federal equity may be thought of as a separate legal system. 64 (1938). how later Supreme Court decisions have made inroads into the broad doctrine enunciated here.
525 (1958). Cooperative. and not another body of law. but rather an expression of a policy that touches the distribution of judicial power between state and federal courts. the outcome notwithstanding. Through diversity jurisdiction. the result should not be any different in a federal court extending jurisdiction solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship. 460 (1965). S. a federal court may afford an equitable remedy for a substantive right recognized by a state even though a state court cannot give it. Here. And in Byrd v. may itself be in the process of being slowly eroded by modern courts. Notes Guaranty Trust. S. Congress meant to afford out-of-state litigants another tribunal. the Court suggested that some constitutional doctrines (there. Emery 10/28/2008 6:49:59 PM Erie Doctrine / Ascertaining Applicable Law / Choice Of Law . since the federal court is adjudicating a state-created right solely because of diversity of citizenship of the parties it is. It is. held that where state law conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. in effect. Erie insures that insofar as legal rules determine the outcome of litigation. which clarified Erie. Plumer. Tompkins was not an endeavor to formulate scientific legal terminology. 356 U. v.give simply because a federal court in diversity jurisdiction is available as an alternative. only another court of the state. Course: Case Name: Case Date: Citation: Jurisdiction: Judge: Book Page: Last Update: Legal Concepts: Rule of Law Civil Procedure Mason v. Hanna v. Blue Ridge Elec. the latter prevails regardless of the effect on outcome of the litigation. Co. therefore. practice. The question is not whether a statute of limitation is "procedural. immaterial to make a "substantive-procedure" dichotomy—Erie R. it cannot afford recovery if the right to recovery is made unavailable by the state. the right to a jury trial in federal court) are so important as to be controlling over state law—once again." but whether the statute so affects the result of litigation as to be controlling in state law. and procedure. Reversed and remanded. 380 U. Matters of "substance" and of "procedure" turn on different considerations. Federal courts enforce state-created substantive rights if the mode of proceeding and remedy were consonant with the traditional body of equitable remedies.
Course: Civil Procedure Case Name: Swift v. it is up to the district court to try to decide how the state court would rule on that issue today. Here. The order of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. (Mason v. It must search through other state precedent to rule on an issue. Where. the decision appears to have lost its vitality. This is borne out by dicta in at least one case indicating dissatisfaction with the 1928 precedent. a pronouncement of a state supreme court will be final on a given issue.1. the role of a federal court becomes much like a state trial court. Ascertaining the State Law. C. 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. J. even if that ruling has lost its vitality? Facts Holding HOLDING AND DECISION: (Magruder. and it is unlikely that the Mississippi Supreme Court would follow its own precedent.) No. it seems relatively clear that the true state of the law in Mississippi is not to require contractual privity. not every issue that comes before a federal court sitting in diversity will have been ruled upon by a state supreme court. there has been a major shift in products liability law since 1928. Tyson Case Date: Citation: . There is no question but that a federal court sitting in diversity must follow state law. When this occurs. 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. In light of this. American Emery Wheel Works) Issue ISSUE: Must a state supreme court ruling on an issue be followed by a federal court sitting in diversity. however. Notes EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: Obviously. Generally speaking.
Which State? Swift v.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. Federal Court decided Facts Holding Notes Rules of Decision Act: 28 U..if no federal law on point then even in federal court you apply state law.S.. 1652 federal court apply state law excepet where Congress says other wise.C.. New York law was going to govern.. do not apply local common law but SUPER common law which is the Majority Rule. .someone whom gave consideration Federal Court about rights on a holder in due course being enforced.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?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.