Upgrade to remove ads
Terms in this set (35)
Erie v. Tompkins
In diversity cases the federal courts must apply state judge-made law (common law) on any substantive issue where there is no federal statute on point.
Carter v. Hinkle
Taxi cab driver looks to bring separate suites for both property and personal damages. Court adopts minority Primary Rights Test.
Dioguardi v. Durning
Plaintiff's complaint need only contain a statement that shows he would be entitled to relief.
Leatherman v. Tarrant County
A court cannot require a higher standard specificity for a certain type of claim that is not enumerated in Rule 9(b). Rule 9(b) imposes a particularity requirement in cases of fraud and mistake, however the rule does not have any reference to complaints alleging municipal liability.
McCormick v. Kopmann
Rule 8(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a Plaintiff to plead alternative allegations. The pleader is also permitted to plead inconsistent versions of the facts. The purpose in allowing plaintiffs to plead in the alternative is to ensure that controversies may be settled and justice is accomplished.
Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly
An antitrust claim cannot survive a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) when it only alleges that the monopolists engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to competition, if there is no factual context suggesting conspiracy or agreement to do so.
An antitrust claim is insufficient if it only conforms to FRCP 8(a)(2); it must include some contextual facts that make the claim plausible.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Complaint does not require a bunch of detailed factual allegations, but does require more than an unadorned "the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me" accusation. Complaint must contain sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible. Court asks for more than a possibility that the ∆ is liable based on threadbare conclusions and rules that plaintiff must have stated more than legal conclusions in the complaint. In this case, the plaintiff needed to show that the government acted with a discriminatory purpose - it is because race rather than in spite of it.
United Oil Co. v. Parts Associates, INC.
Only those products that have been claimed, complained, or lawsuits brought regarding liver damages are recoverable. The scope of discovery must be somewhat limited. Cases involving the same or similar products containing the same chemicals is also discoverable. The burden is on the party resisting discovery to clarify and explain precisely why its objections are proper. At trial it will be the offering party that will bear the burden of relevance.
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC
Because UBS's spoliation was willful, the lost information is presumed to be relevant. Failure of both ∆ and counsel to properly hand over evidence as well as preserve evidence.
Hickman v. Taylor
Discovery has ultimate and necessary boundaries. Limitations come into existence when the inquiry encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege. The protective cloak of this privilege does not extend to information that an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation. However, an attempt, without necessity or justification, to secure written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party's counsel, falls outside the arena of discovery.
Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.
The Washington Supreme Court found that the Trial Court was in error when they did not impose sanctions on Fisons for failure to disclose (aka discovery abuse), and remanded the case.
The Washington Supreme Court looked to Washington Rule 26(g) (very similar to the Federal Rule 26(g)). Therefore the Trial Court erred in accepting Fisons' arguments against sanctions. The Court found that Fisons was playing games with the language. They produced documents related to theophylline that used the brand name, but not document that talked about the chemical itself.
Chauffeurs Local 391 v. Terry
The nature of Respondents' duty of fair representation action and the remedy they sought was a legal action. The money damages Respondents sought are of a type traditionally awarded by courts of law. Thus, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution), entitled Respondents to a jury trial. Court of Appeals decision affirmed.
J.E.B. v. Alabama
The majority of the United States Supreme Court held that parties should not be allowed to discriminate based upon gender when selecting a jury. The state should not be allowed to promote cynical stereotypes of the manner in which men and women weigh evidence. Women, similarly to African-Americans, have historically been discriminated against, and the Equal Protection Clause prohibits that manner of reasoning.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the heightened evidentiary requirements that apply to proof of actual malice need not be considered for the purposes of a motion for summary judgment. Remanded.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(c) (FRCP Rule 56(c)) mandates summary judgment must be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who failed to show sufficient evidence to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
Len Bias Case
• Π have to show damages but ∆ shows impossibility.
• Drug user + Every insurance company does not grant policies to drug users = impossibility.
Lavender v. Kurn
• A jury verdict may only be overturned if there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the verdict.
• The court held that if there is any evidentiary basis for a verdict, an appellate court may not overturn a jury verdict, not free to relitigate the factual dispute in a reviewing court. A jury can disregard or disbelieve facts that may be inconsistent with its conclusion and it may speculate and make conjecture to reach a verdict if the facts are disputed. This evidence demonstrates that there was evidence from which it might be inferred that the end of the mail hook struck Haney in the back of the head.
Dadurian v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
• The Federal Appellate Court vacated the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.
• The Appellate Court found that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
Cunningham v. Hamilton County
The Court reasoned that federal courts have appellate jurisdiction over final decision of the district courts. A decision is not final, ordinarily, unless it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Here, the Rule 37 sanction imposed on Cunningham neither ended the litigation nor left the court only to execute the judgment. Thus, it was not a final decision subject to appellate review.
The Court recognized, however, that under the collateral-order doctrine, appellate jurisdiction may exist from small category of orders that do not terminate the litigation. That small category includes only decisions that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from the merits and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.
Mohawk Industries, INC. v. Carpenter
The Supreme Court held that disclosure orders that are adverse to the attorney-client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
Ortiz v. Jordan
A party may not appeal a denial of summary judgment after a district court has conducted a full trial on the merits.
Cromwell v. County of Sac
Where a second action between the same parties is based upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue upon which the verdict or judgment was rendered.
As a legal matter the question of fraud is essential in the first case because under state law if the contract is fraudulent that would be an affirmative defense for the ∆.
Rios v. Davis
It is the judgment and not the conclusions of fact filed by a trial court that constitutes estoppel. A finding of fact by a jury or court, which does not become the basis or one of the grounds of the final judgment, is not conclusive against either party to the suit.
Because Rios won the first case he could not appeal the finding that he was negligent.
He did not have his day in court with concern to the issue of negligence.
Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
The Court found that non-parties to lawsuits can be bound by privity, but certain things have to happen for the non-party to be considered "sufficiently close":
1. A non-party that has succeeded to a party's interested in property is bound by prior judgments.
2. A non-party who controlled the original suit is bound by the resulting judgment.
3. A non-party whose interests were adequately represented by a party in the original suit is bound by the resulting judgment.
Since the 13 new defendants didn't meet any of the standards for being "sufficiently close" to the parties in Borel, they were not bound by issue preclusion.
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
A plaintiff should be allowed to employ offensive collateral estoppel unless it would have been easy for the plaintiff to have joined in the earlier action, or collateral estoppel would be unfair given the circumstances.
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
In cases where a plaintiff has both federal and state claims against the defendant, although there may be no diversity jurisdiction, the federal court has discretion to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state claim based upon state law if the state-created claim and the federal claim derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.
Schwartz v. Swan
π's complaint alleges liability arising out of a series of transactions. It cannot be determined which accident caused Schwartz's injuries, so the nature and extent of her injuries, as well as the cause of those injuries, presents a common question of fact.
Claims arising out of a series of transactions may be joined!
Dindo v. Whitney
The purpose of Rule 13(a) is to prevent a multiplicity of actions, all arising out of the same transaction. However, if the case is settled, the court has been less burdened and the parties can protect themselves by demanding cross-releases. If the ∆ knows of the existence of a counterclaim, and fails to raise it, then his subsequent action is barred by the action of collateral estoppel, regardless of whether the claim was settled, or a full trial on the merits was held.
Carteret Savings & Loan Assn. v. Jackson
The Massachusetts Appellate Court found that the Jacksons' claims should have been asserted as compulsory counterclaims in the original Florida lawsuit. They chose not to make a counterclaim in that lawsuit, and were now barred from doing it in Massachusetts pursuant to Rule 13(a).
When a defendant is defaulted for failure to file a pleading, the default applies to whatever the party should have pleaded.
Markvicka v. Brodhead-Garrett Co.
∆'s complaint shows that third party "may be liable," therefore the Rule 14 motion is proper.
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
Diversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff, even where the non-diverse defendant is impleaded through ancillary jurisdiction.
Haas v. Jefferson National Bank
In specific, Rule 19(a)(2)(ii) requires joining when "disposition of the action in the person's absence may leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest."
Temple v. Synthes Corp.
The court held that this is a long-standing rule of law and is not changed by Rule 19. Under the Advisory Committee notes to Rule 19(a), a tortfeasor with usual joint and several liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability.
Hansberry v. Lee
Here, since the parties have dual and potentially conflicting interest to the agreement in compelling and resisting performance, it is hard to say that any of them are of the same class. There was no designation of the Defendants in the suit as a class.
Exxon Mobile Corp. Allapattah Services
Court ruled that as long one plaintiff meets the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction, Section 1367 authorizes federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims even if they do not meet the requirement.
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
Torts Spring Semester
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
MBE Civil Procedure Multiple Choice
MBE Civil Procedure Multiple Choice
Federal Civil Procedure Assessment
Civil Procedure---BARBRI AMP
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
PR Flash Cards