Civil Procedure II

Class Notes

Case Briefs

  1. Hawkins v Masters Farms Inc: 9/12/11 ; For the purposes of venue, the important thing is domicile-- where you live, with the intention of staying.
  2. Bridges v Diesel Service Inc: Not discussed ; SMRY
  3. Bell v. Novick Transfer Co.: Not discussed ; SMRY
  4. Larson v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co.: 9/12/11 ; Joinder-- we like joining claims arising out of the same incidents.
  5. Rush v. City of Maple Heights: 9/12/11 ; Claim preclusion-- if you've got two injuries from the same event, you don't get to have two trials.
  6. Pennoyer v Neff: 9/14/11 ; notice by publication is insufficient: serve when the defendant is in the state.
  7. International Shoe v Washington: 9/21/11 ; Minimum contacts with a state will subject you to jurisdiction there.
  8. McGee v International Life Ins Co: 9/21/11 ; Doing business, even by mail, can satisfy the minimum contacts rule.
  9. Hanson v Denckla: 9/21/11 ; But purely unilateral assertions of jurisdiction (i.e., no mailing of solicitation as in McGee do not satisfy minimum contacts.
  10. Shaffer v Heitner: 9/21/11 ; The old Pennoyer rule about attachment no longer works as an end-run around International Shoe-- attachment can violate due process.
  11. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v Woodson: 9/26/11 ; Just putting products into the stream of comerce doesn't create minimum contacts.
  12. Asahi Metal Industry Co v Superior Court: 9/26/11 ; Same as World-Wide VW, but with even more attenuated and international facts
  13. Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz: 9/26/11 ; Intentionally engaging in business with companies in another state conveys personal jurisdiction.
  14. Pavlovich v Superior Court: 9/26/11 ; Just posting information on the Internet for all to see doesn't subject you to jurisdiction in any specific place. (but a close call)
  15. Perkins v Benguet Consolidated Mining Co: 9/28/11 ; Systematic operation of a foreign business from within a US state may subject the business to suit there (but this may have been the exigencies of war).
  16. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v Hall: 9/28/11 ; Just purchasing stuff doesn't subject you to jurisdiction for things other than the purchase transactions.
  17. Burnham v Superior Court: 10/3/11 ; State courts have personal jurisdiction over people physically present in the state.
  18. Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Shute: 10/3/11 ; Unless a forum-selection clause is unfair, it will be upheld.
  19. Mullane v Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co: 10/3/11 ; Requirements for notice might differ depending on how easy it is to identify parties.
  20. Gibbons v Brown: 10/5/2011 ; If you're looking at a long-arm statute, first decide whether the statute allows jurisdiction, then do the minimum contacts (i.e., constitutional) analysis.
  21. Dee-K Enterprises Inc v Heveafil Sdn Bhd: 10/5/11 ; Nice discussion of service of process on foreign defendants.
  22. Piper Aircraft v Reyno: 10/5/11 ; Nice forum non conveniens example, lots of strategic pleading.
  23. Louisville and Nashville Railroad v Mottley: 10/10/11 ; The well-pleaded complaint rule.
  24. Redner v Sanders: 10/12/11 ; Horsing around with diversity: citizenship vs. residency.
  25. Saadeh v Farouki: 10/12/11 ; Tricky tricks with resident aliens and diversity (not all courts follow this reasoning)
  26. In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation: 10/17/11 ; Supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate when state and federal claims are related to the extent that resolving the state claims might affect the federal claim.
  27. Szendrey-Ramos v First Bancorp: 10/17/11 ; A nice tour of the factors that would cause you not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
  28. Caterpillar Inc v Lewis: 10/19/11 ; Botched removal on diversity grounds doesn't necessarily undo a judgment.
  29. Erie Railroad v Tompkins: 10/19/11 ; Except where federal laws prevail, the substantive law of the case is the law of the state.
  30. Guaranty Trust Co v York: 10/19/11 ; The outcome-determinative test for applying state law: Erie says we want the outcomes in cases to be governed by the same laws in state and federal court.
  31. Byrd v Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative: 10/24/11 ; When a rule isn't outcome-determinative, the federal system is free to follow its own rule.
  32. Hana v Plumer: 10/24/11 ; As long as the FRCP are constitutional and not violative of the Rules Enabling Act, federal courts should follow them over state procedure.
  33. Semtek Intl Inc v Lockheed Martin Corp: 10/24/11 ; Federal diversity judgments don't merit a broader scope than state judgments would (claim preclusion in diversity is no different than claim preclusion in state court).
  34. Frier v City of Vandalia: 11/2/11 ; If the evidence required to prove your second suit would sustain the verdict in your first suit, you've got claim preclusion.
  35. Martino v McDonalds System Inc: 11/2/11 ; If there has been a judgment, you can't bring a new claim that would undermine it.
  36. Searle Brothers v Searle: 11/2/11 ; People who aren't parties to a suit are not bound by its preclusive effects.
  37. Gargallo v Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith: 11/7/11 ; Judgments by courts lacking subject matter jurisdition are not preclusive (under R(2)J)
  38. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v Parks: 11/7/11 ; An issue is precluded if it has been actually litigated and determined previously.
  39. Parklane Hosiery Co v Shore: 11/9/11 ; No need for mutuality of parties in issue preclusion; also discussion of offensive and defensive collateral estoppel.
  40. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co v Century Home Components: 11/9/11 ; Inconsistent results in prior cases prevent collateral estoppel.
  41. Kovach v District of Columbia: Not really discussed ; Both collateral estoppel and res judicata about bogus traffic tickets.
  42. Durfee v Duke: 11/9/11 ; Even a court's determination of its own jurisdction is entitled to full faith and credit, if the issue has been fully and fairly litigated.
  43. United States v Beggerly: 11/9/11 ; We don't reopen judgments unless there's a grave injustice afoot.
  44. Plant v Blazer Financial Services: 11/14/11 ; Compulsory counterclaims get supplemental juridiction, and debt claims are compulsory.
  45. Mosley v General Motors Corp: 11/16/11 ; Permissive joinder doesn't require identical issues of law and fact-- reasonably related is good enough.
  46. Price v CTB Inc: 11/16/11 ; impleader under rule 14 to dilute liability.
  47. Kroger v Omaha Public Power District: 11/21/11 ; Factual background for the next case.
  48. Owen Ewuipment and Erection Co v Kroger: 11/21/11 ; Impleading a defendant to destroy diversity.
  49. Temple v Synthes Corp: 11/21/11 ; Joint tortfeasors are permissive parties, not indispensible, under Rule 19(a).
  50. Helzbergs Diamond Shops v Valley West Des Moines Shopping Center: 11/21/11 ; Another example of not being an indispensible party.
  51. Natural Resources Defense Council v United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission: 11/21/11 ; The standard for intervention.
  52. Martin v Wilks: 11/28/11 ; There is no duty to intervene; only parties are bound by a suit.
  53. Cohen v Republic of the Philippines: 11/28/11 ; It's an interpleder case, but the reasoning is really about intervention.
  54. Communities for Equity v Michigan High School Athletic Assn: 11/28/11 ; Straightforward class certification under rule 23.
  55. Heaven v Trust Company Bank: 11/28/11 ; Compulsory counterclaims wreck class certification.
  56. Hanserry v Lee: 11/28/11 ; A class action only binds absentee members if their interests were adequately represented.
  57. Phillips Petroleu v Shults: 11/30/11 ; Not as much need to protect the interests of absentee plaintiffs as those of defendants haled into court from elsewhere
  58. Amchem Products Inc v Windsor: 11/30/11 ; Settlement-only class fails for purporting to bind different interest groups.