Summary Judgment, Trial, Former Adjudication, Appeals | Summaries Commercial Law

Civil%Procedure%–%Civ%Pro%

% % us.docsity.com%

F. Pretrial Disposition – Summary Judgment

Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co. (1991) p. 35

• Facts

§ Houchens’s husband disappeared in Thailand and was never seen again. He had

two life insurance policies, and Houchens wanted them paid out. The problem was

that the policies required Mr. Houchens die in an accident in order to pay

out. Houchens sued American Home Assurance for breach of contract, but AHA

argued that there was no way to prove that Mr. Houchens died in an accident.

§ Virginia law- one who has been missing for at least 7 years is presumed dead

o H brought suit against AHA for breach of contract on 2 life insurance policies covering her

husband – one covered occupational accidental death and the other non-occupational

accidental death

o AHA moved for summary judgment – no evidence of death, let alone that death was

accidental

§ DC: motion granted

§ H appeals (this case) – affirmed

• Issue: Was summary judgment appropriate?

• Holding: Yes.

• Analysis

Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment

-------I-----------I----------------I---------------I--------------I--------------------------------------------------

-----------

Complaint Answer Discovery

§ Motion to Dismiss: even if everything in the complain is true, there is no cause of

action

§ Summary Judgment (56(c)): no genuine issue as to fact, apply the applicable law

ú judgment based on everything found through discovery

ú if there is no genuine issue as to fact, nothing for the jury to decide and thus

no need to go to trial

o the SJ in this case was granted and affirmed because plaintiff has to prove that the death was

accidental

§ law stipulates that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove accidental

§ Burden of Production- have to prove that he was dead; and it was accidental

§ Burden of Persuasion- preponderance of the evidence

01/17/2008

G. Trial

Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment Motions for D. V. JNOV

-------I-----------I----------------I--------Discovery---------I----------------I---------Trial----------I-----I---------------------

Complaint Answer Verdict

Voir Dire: process of selecting an unbiased jury – one that has a general understanding of human nature, but is not

associated with the person in the case

Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment (1987) p.42

• Facts

o N was operating lawn mower made by S, slid backwards into creek despite applying brakes

and 4 of N’s fingers amputated in the process

o Trial: court dismissed N’s negligence and warranty clams but left the strict liability defect

claim to the jury – found S guilty

§ TC: immediately entered JNOV

§ N appeals – reversed and jury verdict is reinstated

Partial preview of the text

Download Summary Judgment, Trial, Former Adjudication, Appeals and more Summaries Commercial Law in PDF only on Docsity!

F. Pretrial Disposition – Summary Judgment Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co. (1991) p. 35

Facts § Houchens’s husband disappeared in Thailand and was never seen again. He had two life insurance policies, and Houchens wanted them paid out. The problem was that the policies required Mr. Houchens die in an accident in order to pay out. Houchens sued American Home Assurance for breach of contract, but AHA argued that there was no way to prove that Mr. Houchens died in an accident. § Virginia law- one who has been missing for at least 7 years is presumed dead o H brought suit against AHA for breach of contract on 2 life insurance policies covering her husband – one covered occupational accidental death and the other non-occupational accidental death o AHA moved for summary judgment – no evidence of death, let alone that death was accidental § DC: motion granted § H appeals (this case) – affirmed
Issue: Was summary judgment appropriate?
Holding: Yes.
Analysis Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment -------I-----------I----------------I---------------I--------------I--------------------------------------------------

Complaint Answer Discovery § Motion to Dismiss: even if everything in the complain is true, there is no cause of action § Summary Judgment ( 56(c) ): no genuine issue as to fact, apply the applicable law ú judgment based on everything found through discovery ú if there is no genuine issue as to fact, nothing for the jury to decide and thus no need to go to trial o the SJ in this case was granted and affirmed because plaintiff has to prove that the death was accidental § law stipulates that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove accidental § Burden of Production- have to prove that he was dead; and it was accidental § Burden of Persuasion- preponderance of the evidence 01/17/ G. Trial Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment Motions for D. V. JNOV -------I-----------I----------------I--------Discovery---------I----------------I---------Trial----------I-----I--------------------- Complaint Answer Verdict Voir Dire: process of selecting an unbiased jury – one that has a general understanding of human nature, but is not associated with the person in the case Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment (1987) p.

Facts o N was operating lawn mower made by S, slid backwards into creek despite applying brakes and 4 of N’s fingers amputated in the process o Trial: court dismissed N’s negligence and warranty clams but left the strict liability defect claim to the jury – found S guilty § TC: immediately entered JNOV § N appeals – reversed and jury verdict is reinstated

Issue: Did the district court err in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict to the defendant?
Holding: A court should grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the moving party only when it finds that, having taken the evidence as most favorable to the non-moving party, reasonable people could not possibly find for the non-moving party. Analysis: o JNOV – will grant if reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party o P in this case says he slid down hill, and that the brakes were on as he was sliding down § expert says that the deadman device would have kicked on in less than a second o If the jury believes N’s testimony, then there is room for the jury to find that there was a defect because there would have been plenty of time to stop the blades § court of appeals is saying that the jury is free to believe this testimony o in civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of persuasion – there must be a slight amount of evidence in their favor o The trial court and the appellate court disagree on whether the lack of a “dead man” device is or could be a “defect”. The trial court seems to zoom in on the fact that the plaintiff must prove not only causation but also that it was a defect that caused the injury. The best evidence that the appellate court was right was that the jury actually did find for the plaintiff. The only way they could have done that and had their verdict correctly set aside would be if the jury itself was unreasonable. 01/22/ H. Former Adjucation Rush v. City of Maple Heights (1958) p.
Facts o R’s motorcycle ran into hole in the road, R thrown off an injured. o Brought separate claims for damage to the motorcycle and then for personal injury § Motorcycle – Municipal Court – ruled in favor of R § Personal Injury – Court of Common Pleas – determined that issues of negligence and proximate causation had been established at the previous trial, only thing to determine was measure of damages, judgment entered for R o City appeals – claims error in allowing R to split cause of action and file in separate courts § Judgment reversed
Issue: Can a plaintiff file separate claims for injury to person and property?
Holding: No. o Rule: A person may maintain only one action to enforce his rights existing at the time such action is commenced.
Analysis o Former Adjudication § Collateral Estoppel: issue preclusion ú prevented from raising issue in a later action § Res Judicata: claim preclusion ú if the same cause of action, than everything in the second lawsuit will be precluded, not just the issues o Rush’s lawyer was relying on stare decisis – in Vasu v.Kohlers, the Supreme Court had split injury to person and property into 2 separate and distinct clams § the Court overrules this past decision by adopting persuasive evidence of the majority rule used in other states o the point of moving to the broader scope of causes of action is to force the plaintiff to join all claims from the same tortuous act or else they will lose the ability to bring the claim to trial § increases efficiency, fosters policy of repose o Note: could husband bring claim that he was injured? § Yes, res judicata applies only to the individual.

§ these are not considered appeals - magistrate is like "assistant judge" o just because interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable does not mean that they are not reviewable § once the final judgment is rendered, assuming that the issues have been preserved, Appealability: the ability to take the order up right now Review ability: applies to most every legal issue in the case – will be reviewable at some point Note: “Per Curiam” – unanimous and unsigned

in the above case, probably means that the opinion was written by a law clerk – used if straightforward matter
also used when court is split significantly but nobody wants to write concurring or dissenting opinion (less often the reason for per curiam opinion) 28 U.S.C. § (a) (b) if the DC makes a decision that this is an interlocutory order worthy of review, CoA can choose to review it o this is very rare Immediately Appealable Orders?
Butler v. Rigby – the decision to order, and the decision not to order, production of certain documents à NO
Bridgeport Music – o separate trials and severance § ct thinks factual issues closely interlaced – simply order separate trials ú not until after both trials (entire case has been litigated) is final judgment entered § but, if severed – completely separate trials, then each enters final judgment o thus if separate, the result from the first trial is not immediately appealable because no final judgment has been entered o but, if severed, immediately appealable because the case has been disposed of
Bell v. Novick – court denied more specificity à NO o an order denying a motion to dismiss allows the case to go on o but, an order granting a motion to dismiss ends the case and thus IS appealable
Houchins Case o an order granting summary judgment is immediately appealable, but an order denying is not § one exception: when Δ has qualified immunity from suit – meaning they are not qualified to be subjected to litigation – an order denying their immunity is immediately appealable Appropriate Standards of Review
issues of law are reviewed de novo : the court starts from scratch (are not bound by the lower courts finding) o ie: if the jury instructions correctly stated the law o ie: if it was proper to grant a motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or JNOV
on questions of fact, the court of appeals adopts a more deferential standard – Rule 52(a)(6) o must be clearly erroneous for a finding of fact to be set aside o why? the trial judge is the one who is there – probably in a better position to determine credibility

CHAPTER 2: PERSONAL JURISDICTION

A. The Origins Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) p.

Facts o Neff hired Mitchell to do legal work - when Neff failed to pay, Mitchell sued in state court § Neff was not a resident of the state, not personally served with process, and did not appear § judgment entered for Mitchell for failure to answer after constructive summons by publication o after the default judgment was entered, Neff acquired 300 acres of land – Mitchell had this land seized and sold to satisfy judgment § Pennoyer then bought the land, obtained a sheriff’s deed o Neff brought suit against Pennoyer in federal court to recover possession of the land (action of ejectment)– claiming his original government deed was better than Pennoyer’s sheriff’s deed § TC: found for Neff – based on technical grounds § SC: affirms – BUT based on jurisdictional grounds ú *Appellate Courts can always affirm for any reason
Issue: Was service of process by publication valid?
Holding: No. o Rules: see bold below
Analysis: o The law assumes that property is always in the possession of the owner, and the owner therefore knows what happens to his property; therefore, attachment of the property before judicial proceedings makes constructive notice sufficient. o Terms: § in personam: jurisdiction over the person ú when a court has jurisdiction in personam over a person, it can adjudicate the rights of the person for that lawsuit– sky is the limit in terms of what can enter against them § in rem: jurisdiction over the property ú in these cases, you are suing the property – adjudicating the interests of the individual as to that individual piece of property as well as everyone else who claims an interest in that property ú ie: quieting title – once the judgment is entered, that is the valid title as to everyone who may make a claim for that piece of property § quasi-in-rem: in rem because it is based on the presence of the land; quasi because it has nothing to do with the property, but the property is the excuse to adjudicate this separate claim; limitation that judgment is for the amount of the property ú No limitation or requirement that this be an action that has anything to do with the property; not an action to decide who owns the property (assumption that absent defendant owns property free and clear) ú Attaching the property; the defendant hears that the property has been attached and is going to have to come back to save his property; if he doesn’t come back the property will be sold (has a choice to let that happen and avoid the adjudicating and getting a judgment for money, or go adjudicate the property claim) ú Property taken hostage and held to compel the defendant to come in and defend the lawsuit o In this case – used publication in service – does not really provide adequate notice, no in personam! § had they instead contacted the legal system in the state that he was in - still would not be OK

Problems p.69 – A, resident of Minnesota, is suing B, a resident of North Dakota, in Minnesota (where B owns land) A serves B in ND – B moves to dismiss the Minnesota action for lack of personal jurisdiction. (direct attack)

Will be granted – can’t go outside the boundaries of your state to assert personal jurisdiction. a. A serves B in ND – B ignores and default judgment entered against her. When A went to ND to get enforced, and B argues that judgment is invalid and shouldn’t be enforced
ND not required to give full faith and credit to the judgment because the rendering court did not have personal jurisdiction c. If served when B was just traveling to Minn. on business?
not granted – does have personal jurisdiction (physical transitory presence) d.
collateral attack – but they will lose because did have personal jurisdiction e.
if there was no type of notice (even constructive) then no jurisdiction; but if there had been notice, then the attachment would serve to allow jurisdiction based on quasi in rem f.
if you do not attach from the outset, you cannot obtain quasi in rem jurisdiction g.
a state can adjudicate the status of persons within its state – even though it directly effects another party h.
in this case, seeking personal judgment against B, thus need personal jurisdiction over B i.
here, B instead of waiting for a default judgment to be rendered, B argued before judgment and lost
in enforcement, B again argues that there was lack of jurisdiction o precluded by res judicata? o B made special appearance in Minnesota for sole purpose of defending himself (special appearance) – allows you to contest lack of jurisdiction without submitting yourself to general jurisdiction § even if Minnesota had gotten it wrong – B had subjected herself to her court, thus the Minnesota court had jurisdiction to determine whether had jurisdiction and B cannot raise the claim again in a separate suit Pennoyer v. Neff – you can consent to personal jurisdiction
if defendant comes in and fails to make a special appearance, consenting to jurisdiction of the court
if the defendant does make special appearance, the court has jurisdiction only over that issue 01/28/ Consent as basis for personal jurisdiction was later extended to include implied consent
many states have statutes that by driving on highways on state, you consent to having a state official represent you in any action resulting from collision of that state
Hess v. Pawloski : defendant was involved in an accident on Massachusetts highway, asserted jurisdiction based on above type statute o this is “implied consent” – not consent in a meaningful sense to be tried in that state § gives rise to specific jurisdiction – applies only to certain type of claim o Justifications § state has interest in protecting its citizens from nonresident drivers § you are getting benefit from driving on highways, and they fact that they are regulated based on state laws o Court said even though left the state, still subject to jurisdiction because he came into the state Raising Claims of Personal Jurisdiction:

special appearance – allows you to come into the state solely for the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction o under Federal Rules – no special appearance o FRCP 12: defense can be raised in the answer or in a pretrial motion § see (g) and (h) – sequence in which must be waived; lack of jurisdiction can be waived if not raised at the proper time Collateral Attack vs. Direct Attack Collateral Attack- An attempt to impeach or overturn a judgment rendered in a judicial proceeding, made in a proceeding other than within the original action or an appeal from it. Direct Attack- As applied to a judicial proceeding, an attempt by appellants to avoid or correct a judgment in some manner provided by law

Summary Judgment, Trial, Former Adjudication, Appeals, Summaries of Commercial Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Summary Judgment, Trial, Former Adjudication, Appeals and more Summaries Commercial Law in PDF only on Docsity!

CHAPTER 2: PERSONAL JURISDICTION