civ pro case chart

8/3/2019 Civ Pro Case Chart

1/14

CASE DATE/

COURT

RULE BRIEF FACTUAL

SUMMARY

RULE

INVOLVED

ERIE/CHOICE

OF LAW

Erie RR v.

Tompkins

1938/US Although the 1789 Rules of

Decisions Act lead federal courts

unfettered to apply their own

rules of procedure in common law

actions brought in federal court,

state law governs substantive

issues. State law includes not

only statutory law, but case law as

well.

No federal common law

Trespasser v.

Train; forum

shopping

USC 725

Hanna v.Plummer

1965/US The Erie Doctrine mandates thatfederal courts are to apply state

substantive law and federal

procedural law, but where

matters fall roughly between the

two and are rationally capable of

classification as either, the

constitution grants the federal

system the power to regulate

their practice and procedure

In a PI suit basedon diversity,

there was a

large divergence

between state

and federal

procedure

regarding the

methods of

service

28 U.S.C.S. 2072 (Rules

Enabling Act)

FRCP 4 (d)(1)

Netherland v.

Eli LillyFEDERAL

QUESTION

Louisville &

Nashville RR v

Mottley

1908/US Alleging an anticipated

constitutional defense in the

complaint does not give a federal

court jurisdiction if there is no

diversity of citizenship between

litigants

Mottley was

awarded

lifetime tickets

as part of a

settlement.

Congress

outlawed

lifetime tickets.

DIVERSITY

Redner v.

Sanders

2000/Distri

ct Court

For the purposes of diversity

jurisdiction under 1332(a)(2), the

controversy must be between

citizens of a state and citizens or

subjects of a foreign state, not

merely residents of a foreign state

Plaintiff claimed

to be a resident

of France.

USC

1332(a)(2)

Saadeh v. 1997/Distri Aliens cannot bring suit against A Greek sued a USC 1332


2/14

Farouki ct Court each other in federal court due to

the requirement of complete

diversity

Jordanian in

federal court

based on

diversity.

Default on a

loan

Article III

SUPPLEMENTA

L JURISDICTION

In re

Ameriquest

Mortgage Co.

Mortgage

Lending

Practices

Litigation

2007/Distri

ct Court

Supplemental Jurisdiction is

proper where there is a sufficient

nexus between state and federal

claims, and statutory

discretionary factors do not weigh

in favor of a decision to decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction

Motion to

dismiss state law

claims that were

based on the

courts

supplemental

jurisdiction.

FRCP 12(b)(1)

USC 1367

Szendrey-

Ramos v First

Bancorp

2007/Distri

ct Court

(PuertoRico)

A court may decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction where

1. The state law claims risecomplex or novel issues or 2. The

state law claims substantially

predominate over the federal

claim.

Plaintiff filed an

employment

discriminationsuit.

USC 1367

REMOVAL

Caterpillar v.

Lewis

1996/US A district courts error in failing to

remand a case improperly

removed does not prevent

adjudication if the jurisdictional

requirements are satisfied at the

time of judgmentPLEADINGS

Haddle v.

Garrison

Stradford v.

Zurich

Insurance Co.

Towmbly and

Iqbal

2007 and

2009

Supreme

Court

Those cases held that pleadings

must contain facts that show an

alleged claim is plausible; a

conclusory statement that an

action establishes liability is notenough.

Jones v. Block The question for the court was

who has the burden of showing

that the prisoner had exhausted

the administrative remedies. The

court held that failure to exhaust

administrative remedies is an

a case was

brought in

federal court

based on federal

question subject

matter


3/14

affirmative defense and inmates

dont have to plead or

demonstrate exhaustion in their

complaints.

jurisdiction. It

was a case

between a

prisoner and a

guard of the

prison.

According to

legislation, a

prisoner must

first exhaust

administrative

remedies before

filing in court.

Walker v.

Norwest Corp.

1996 8th

circuit

He was sanctioned and the case

was dimissed. On appeal the

court holds that Rule 11 sanctions

were correct because it was the

plaintiffs burden to plead diversityand they did not do so because, as

the lawyer said, it would be too

difficult. Court held that this is

not a valid argument and that if

you want to plead diversity you

must identify the citizenship of

the defendants.

A Plaintiffs

lawyer tried to

assert federal

subject matter

jurisdictionbecause SOME

of the parties

were diverse

(obviously this is

not the

standard). The

other side

informs him of

his mistake.

Rule 11

Christian v.

Mattell

9th circuit

1992

A huge amount of monetary

sanctions against the lawyer wereordered. On appeal the court said

that sanctions were correct under

Rule 11 because the lawyer did in

fact misstate the law in a brief.

But the court remanded the cases

to recalculate the damages and

delineate between Rule 11 and

other violations.

Barbie doll case.

A lawyer is citedfor a series of

violations, some

of which fall

under Rule 11

and some that

do not.

Rule 11

Beek v.

Aquaslide N

Dive Co.

8th circuit

1977

In determining if a party should be

allowed to amend their answer,

look at three factors

1. Undue/Unfairprejudice?

2. Bad faith or dilatorymotive?

3. Undue delay incoming forward

Note: the closer it is to try the less

Personal Injury.

The court

decided that

none of these

three

considerations

were met so

they allowed the

party to amend

answer based on

new information

They motion to

file an

amended

answer so as to

withdraw this

answer

pursuant to

15(a)(2)


4/14

likely a court is to grant a motion

to amend pleading because there

will be more prejudice to the

other side.

that came out in

discovery

(manufacturer

of slide)

Zielinski v.

Philadelphia

Piers Inc.

Rule 8 requires that in answer the

defendant must be specific and

deny/admit each allegation

the defendant

did not do so

and they were

not allowed to

amend their

answer

Rule 8

Bonerb v.

Richard J.

Caron

Foundation

AND

Moore v. Baker

The cases ofMoore v. Baker and

Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron

Foundation together tell us that if

a party wishes to relate back to

the original filing to amend a

complaint, the amendment must

assert a claim that arose out of

the same conduct, transaction oroccurrence so as to put the

defendant on notice of the claims

against him.

DISCOVERY

Davis v.

Precoat

Northern

District of

Illinois 2002

The court compelled discovery

finding that it was not too broad

and sufficiently limited to the

claims of the case. The court used

the pleading to measure it

against.

a company

refused to

respond to a

request for

production

because they

found it toobroad.

Rule 26

Steffan v.

Cheney

Dc circuit

1990

on appeal the court decided that

the lower court had abused its

discretion by dismissing cases as a

sanction against a plaintiff who

refused to answer a irrelevant

request for admission.

Case about

homosexual

student at

military school

Rule 26

Silvestri v. GM

Corporation

4th circuit

2001

The court decided that he did

have the duty to preserve, and

should have informed GM of the

location (junkyard) of the carbefore it was destroyed. The

court pointed out that without

the car, GM would be unable to

defend themselves, so despite the

harshness, dismissal is the

appropriate sanction.

Product liability

claim brought

about an airbag

in a GM car. The failed to

preserve the car,

so GM moves

for sanctions, in

particular the

sanction of

dismissal. The

Duty to

preserve


5/14

defendant said

that he didnt

have the duty to

preserve

because it

wasnt his car.

Hickman v.

Taylor

Supreme

court 1947

Attorney for one of the

deceaseds estate requested

during discovery that the

interviews be produced. The

lawyer who conducted the

interview denied stating that they

were his work product. The court

decided that because the witness

was still alive, the information is

readily available to both parties,

and much of the information had

already been revealed viainterrogatories, he did not have to

hand over the interviews.

A boat sunk and

people were

killed and

injured. Estates

of the injured

people sued the

boat, etc. There

was a public

hearing about

the incident. The

attorney for the

boatinterviewed on

of the witnesses.

26(b)(3) Trial

Preparation

Material

otherwise

protected

Chiquita Int. v.

M/V Bolero

Unlike Hickman, the proceeding

case, the court held that the work

product protection was not

overcome by any exceptional

circumstances because the files

that the defendant was seeking

were still in existence.

Thompson v.

Haskell Co.

The court found that this

information was discoverablebecause it was relevant, the

plaintiff had waived privilege by

putting depression at issue, and it

was not otherwise protected.

(Although the plaintiff alleged

that it was protected by trial prep

(26(b)(4)(B) the court held that so

much time had passed and an

examination today would not be

the same thing, so the doctors

report was given to the

defendant.)

An employee

alleged that shewas sexually

harassed and

because she did

not acquiesce

she was fired.

Her employer,

the defendant,

deposed her and

found out that

she was seeing a

psychiatrist. Her

employer then

filed subpoena

for the Doctor.

26(b)(4)(B)

Pretrialdeposition of

experts

otherwise

protected

Stalnaker v.

Kmart Corp

District

court in

Kansas

1996

The court holds that the

information is relevant, not

privileged, and not otherwise

protected on the basis of privacy.

They do, however, limit the

Plaintiff wants

to depose other

Kmart

employees in an

action centered

26(c)

protective

orders


6/14

nature of the question in the

deposition to sex with the cited

supervisor initiated by the

supervisor.

around a Kmart

supervisor that

sexually

harassed

Stalnaker, the

plaintiff. Kmart,

on behalf of the

employee

sought to be

deposed,

motioned for a

protective order

due to the highly

intrusive nature

of the questions.

PRESSURE FOR

ADJUDICATION

Peralta v.Heights

Medical Center

Filed in Txstate court.

Appealed

to US

Supreme

Court

The default judgment andsubsequent sale of property

denied defendant of due process

when he didnt have service of

process (even if he didnt have a

meritorious defense.)

Defendant neverreceived service,

it was sent after

the 90 days

required in

Texas. He did

not answer and

thus a default

judgment was

entered against

him. There was

a lien placed onhis property and

sold. He moved

for bill of review

(equivalent of

Rule 60(b)

motion to

reopen

judgment).

Denied. Appeal

to supreme

court for due

process issues.

Rules 55, 60 re:Default

Judgment

SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Houchens v.

American

Home

Insurance Co.

We dont actually know how he

did or even if he died, so there are

no genuine issues of material fact

that should warrant a showing

before a jury.

Breach of K from

policy holder to

insurance co.

based on co.s

failure to pay up

Summary

Judgment Rule

56: Issues of

genuine

material fact?:


7/14

life insurance

policy of

husband.

Husband

disappeared out

of the country,

nothing known

about his death.

(Movant

doesnt have to

prove the

negative, the

non-moving

party must

prove the

positive)

Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett

1986/Supre

me Court

The movant (Celotex) has to prove

the absence of evidence but they

do not have to show the negative

Products liability

case. Maker of

product moved

for summary

judgment saying

that it wasnt

actually the

product that

killed the s

husband. didprovide

documents (but

no affidavits.)

At Supreme

Court, said this

was within the

rule.

56

Bias v.

Advantage

International

Inc.

Federal

District

Court DC

No issue of genuine fact because

coaches evidence eliminated the

chance that he could have been

insured.

College

basketball

player died for

drug overdose.Parents sued

agent claiming

that he

breached his

contract by not

getting the

player a life

insurance policy

as requested.

Coach said he

could not have

been able to due

to his drug use.

Agent presented

evidence that no

companies at

the time would

insure him and

that he was a

56


8/14

drug user.

Parents

provided less

conclusive

evidence.

JUDICIAL

MANAGEMENT

OF LITIGATION

Lockhart v.

Patel

Federal

district

court in KY,

1987

Judge files show cause order for

contempt. Makes them send a

letter of apology, contempt is

purged

Doctor (Patel)

and his

insurance agent

purposely fail to

comply with

judges orders.

Rule 16 pre-

trial motion

Sanders v.

Union Pacific

RR

Dismissal can be used as a

sanction

Plaintiffs lawyer

completely

failed to comply

with judgesorders, other

side had already

undergone pain

and expense,

other people

before same

court would be

troubled by the

delay, and

sanders case

didnt involveimportant issues

of public policy.

For these

reasons

dismissal was

appropriate.

41(b)

Involuntary

Dismissal and

16(f)(1)(B)

Mckey v.

Fairbairn

If there is a pretrial conference,

there must be a pretrial order.

Pleadings control discovery,

pretrial order controls during case.

Standard for amending pre-trial

order: 16(e) to prevent manifest

injustice

tries to amend

pretrial order.

16

Reid v. San

Pedro, Los

Angeles, and

Salt Lake City

RR

1911, state

court in

Utah

Where evidence is intended to

support one inference, but

instead supports equally one

inference that renders the

defendant liable and another that

Cow killed by a

railroad.

Question of

whether it was

because of the


9/14

does not, the plaintiff must fai railroads

negligence or

the cow owners

negligence.

THE TRIER AND

THE TRIAL

Chauffers,

Teamsters and

Helpers v.Terry

This claim was not in existence in

England in 1791. So the supreme

court looked at 2 factors:

1. Closesthistorical

analog

2. $ damages(more often

legal)

The majority said it should be

treated like a legal claim.

Breach of duty

of fair

representation

Applying 7th

Amendment

preservation of

jury trial to

modern cases

Rule 38-

demand for

jury trial

Amoco Oil Co.v. Torcomian

When claim is a mix of legal andequitable, jury goes first and

hears the legal issues, then judge

hears equitable issues and is

bound by the jury

Son and dadsued by Amoco

for ejectment,

injunction, lost

profit, and

mesne profits.

Rule 38

In re Bostons

Children First

Due to an appearance of bias,

court grants recusal

Writ of

mandamus for

the judge to

recuse herself

Thompson v.

Altheimer andGray

Misseating of a juror can never be

a harmless error

One jury

apparently bias,judge didnt

grant s motion

to strike. won

at trial,

appealed

Pennsylvania

Railroad v.

Chamberlain

The court that if a reasonable jury

would not have been able to find

for the jury (legally sufficient

evidentiary basis) directed verdict

for defendant

50(a) directed

verdict

Lind v.Schenley

Industries

Court granted jnov (no legallysufficient evidence to get to the

jury) and conditionally grants new

trial because contrary to the

substantial weight of evidence

Rule 59granting of

new trial

Peterson v.

Wilson

Jury can impeach own evidence

based on internal influences or

external influence


10/14

RESPECT FOR

JUDGMENTS

Rush v. City of

Maple Heights

Claim preclusion. In order to

meet the one claim

requirement, court applied the

transaction test (as opposed to

the primary rights theory.) Same

claim, so preclusion applies.

Personal injury

and property

damage arose

out of the same

accident.

Claim

preclusion:

same claim

Frier v. City of

Vandalia

Federal court applied Illinois law

which uses the primary rights test

(as opposed to previous court).

Claim

preclusion:

same claim

Martino v.

McDonalds

System Inc.

Searle Brothers

v. Searle

1978 On appeal the court remands

saying that the brothers must

prove their partnership with the

father.

After a divorce

suit, brothers

sue Mom

claiming interest

in her property.

She raises

preclusion.

Claim

preclusion:

parties in

privity

Taylor v.

Sturgell

6 situations in which non-parties

are found to be in privity (an thus

preclusion applies)1. Preexisting substantive legal

reslationship

2. Express agreement to be bound3. Adequate representation by

someone w/same interests

4. Party assuming control overprior litigation

5. Litigating through6. Special statutory schemes (such

as bankruptcy)

Plane

aficionados FOIA

request denied.

Sued but court

did not grant

him the

information.

Then friend(same club)

brought suit for

same request

Claim

preclusion:

party in privity

Gargallo v.

Meril Lynch,

Pierce, Fenner

and Smith

The 1stjudgment doesnt have

preclusive effect in a federal court

action asserting those claims

because Ohio would not give

claim preclusive effect to prior

judgment upon a cause of action

over which the Ohio court had not

subject matter jurisdiction.

Claim

preclusion:

After a final

judgment

Illinois Central

Gulf Railroad v.

Parks

Where a judgment can be based

on either of 3 facts, party pleading

had burden to prove one or the

other.

Issue

Preclusion:

Issue actually

litigated and

determined

Parklane

Hoisery Co. v.

(SEE OUTLINE for the 4 fairness

factors.)

Issue

Preclusion:


11/14

Shore Mutuality

Requirement

Pacific Bell v.

Century Home

Application of 4 fairness factors

State Farm Fire

and CasualtyCo. v. Century

Home

Components

Application of 4 fairness factors

Durfee v. Duke Avulsion and

accretion: who

opened the

land?

Collateral

Attack

Brandon v.

Board of

Education

Court refused to vacate judgment.

Affirmed on appeal.

Clerks office

and lawyer

made mistakes

Rule 60 motion

to vacate

judgment

PERSONAL

JURISDICTION

*Pennoyer v.

Neff

1887/US *Where the object of an action is

to determine the personal rights

and obligations of the parties,

service by publication is

ineffective to confer upon the

court

Suit brought to

recover legal

fees

SEE

INTERNATIOAN

AL SHOE

International

Shoe Co. v.

Washington

1945/US For a state to subject a

nonresident defendant to in

personam jurisdiction, due

process requires that the

nonresident defendant havecertain minimum contacts with

the state such that the

maintenance of the suit does not

offend traditional notions of fair

play and substantial justice

International

Shoe had

salesmen

located in

Washington, butdid not pay

Washington

unemployment

taxes.

Due Process

Clause of 14th

Amendment

McGee v.

International

Life Insurance

Co.

1957/US Due process requires only that in

order to subject a nonresident

defendant to the personal

jurisdiction of the form, the suit

be based on a contract that has

substantial connection with theforum. Trend of expanding state

jdx over foreign corporations and

non residents- due to

nationalization of business,

communication, travel, etc.

Key issue was

that the

insurance

company had

solicited

business withinthe California.

Due Process

Clause of 14th

Amendment

Shaffer v.

Heitner

1977/US Jurisdiction cannot be founded on

property within a state unless

The plaintiff

brought a

Due Process

Clause of 14th


12/14

there are sufficient contacts

within the meaning of the test

developed in international shoe

derivative suit

against the

directors of

Greyhound for

losses it suffered

in antitrust

action in

Oregon.

Amendment

World Wide

Volkswagen

Corp v.

Woodson

1980/US A state court may exercise

personal jurisdiction over a

nonresident defendant only so

long as there exists sufficient

minimum contacts between him

and the forum state such that

maintenance of the suit does not

offend traditional notions of fair

play and substantial justice.

This was an

attempt to

establish

diversity in

order to get a

case away from

an unfavorable

jury pool

Due Process

Clause of 14th

Amendment

Asahi MetalIndustry Co. v.

Superior Court

1987/US 4-4 split on whether enteringproducts into stream of

commerce was enough to

constitute minimum contacts. 4

said entering product in stream of

commerce is enough, the other

side (stream of commerce+) said

that you must make it for the

market or cater to that market.

(But all agreed that in applying

the worldwide balancing factors,

it seems unduly unfair to asahi forthem to travel to California for

court.)

A company withno real ties to

California was

sued in

California

because their

products were

part of a larger

product that

was sold and

used in

California

Due ProcessClause of 14th

Amendment

Burger King

Corp. v.

Rudzewicz

1985/US Direct and continuous contacts by

a franchise with the franchisor

may lead to the franchise being

subject to the jurisdiction of the

franchisors home forum. Applied

the world wide fairness/balancing

factors.

Burger King

brought action

against a

franchisee from

another state.

28 U.S.C.

1332(a)

Due Process

Clause

State Long Arm

Statute

Pavlovich v.

Superior Court

2002/Califo

rnia State

Court

Personal jurisdiction may not

necessarily be acquired over a

defendant based on a posting on

a passive website

Plaintiff posted

info on a

website that

allowed people

to break DVD

codes. He was

sued by DVD

companies.

Lower court


13/14

determined that

he was subject

to jurisdiction in

California,

where he had no

real contacts,

based on his

posting

Perkins v.

Benguet

Consolidated

Mining Co.

1952/US Whenever a foreign corporation

carries on continuous and

systematic corporate activities

within a state, that state may

subject such corporation to the

jurisdiction of its courts in

personam on any transitory cause

of action, even if such cause of

action did not arise within its

borders and was not related tothe business activities of the

corporation within its borders

Stockholder filed

suit against a

Philippines

based business

that does

business in Ohio

and was

temporarily

based there.

An important

note re: this

case is that it

was during

WWII and the

company had

fled Philippines

due to the war.

Quote:

What we aresaying to Ohio

is: You have

decided this

case on an

adequate state

ground, denying

service, which

you had a right

to do, but you

don't have to do

it if you don't

want to, as far

as the decisions

of this Court are

concerned.

Helicopteros

Nacionales de

Columbia v.

1984/US Contract negotiations and

purchasing equipment alone does

not constitute sufficient minimum

Based on the

deaths and

injuries which

Due Process

Clause


14/14

Hall contacts to confer jurisdiction

when they do not arise out of or

relation to the cause of action.

were the result

of a helicopter

crash that

occurred in

Columbia

State Long Arm

Statute

Burnham v.

Superior Court

1990/US State courts have jurisdiction over

nonresidents who are physically

present in the state

Plaintiff was

served with

divorce papers

which visiting

California

Carnival Cruise

Lines v. Shute

1991/US Reasonable forum selection

clauses contained in passenger

tickets are presumptively valid

Shute was

injured on a

cruise. The

ticket contained

a forum

selection clause.

Mullane v.

CentralHanover Bank

& Trust

1950/US In order to satisfy due process

challenges, notice must be bymean calculated to inform the

desired parties and where they

reside outside of the state and

their names and addresses are

available, notice by publication is

insufficient

This was

regarding abanking issue

Due Process

Clause

State Long Arm

Statute

Gibbons v.

Brown

1998/State

Court

A prior decision to file a lawsuit in

a state does not qualify as

sufficient activity in the state to

confer personal jurisdiction

Passenger gave

driver bad

directions,

which resulted

in a car accidentPiper Aircraft

v. Reyno

1981/US A plaintiff may not defeat a

motion to dismiss for forum non

convenience merely by showing

that the substantive law would be

applied in the alternative forum is

less favorable to him than that of

the present forum

Suit brought in

California

despite the fact

that the

accident

happened in

Scotland

28 U.S.C.

1404(a).

civ pro case chart

Documents