Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law - Exam 2025, Exams of Nursing

A comprehensive overview of jurisdiction and choice of law in civil procedure, focusing on the constitutional framework that shapes litigation. It delves into the concepts of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and the supreme court's landmark decision in pennoyer v. Neff. The document also explores the differences between civil and common law systems and provides a detailed overview of the federal and state court systems in the united states.

Typology: Exams

2024/2025

Available from 01/04/2025

answerhub
answerhub 🇺🇸

3.9

(15)

5.4K documents

1 / 15

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
CIVIL PROCEDURE (SEMESTER 1, 1L YEAR) EXAM 2025
Important way in which the constitution shapes litigation: Jurisdiction - Precise Answer ✔✔In civil
procedure, "jurisdiction" is mainly referring to judicial jurisdiction...the power of a court to render a
judgement that other courts and governments will reconize and conforce.
- Subject matter and personal are the two main types of jurisdiction. Both are necessary for any court's
power to render a binding decison in a case.
- 3 parts of the Consitution influence jurisdiciton:
1. article 3 authorizes the establishment of a system of federal courts and sets the limits of federal
judicial authority.
2. Article 4 requires that "full faith and credit be given in each state to judicial proceedings of every other
state." SCOTUS has interpreted this clause that one state must reconize and enforce judgements of other
states. Ex. If a GA court enters a judgement for 100,000 against Bank of America but the plantiff cannot
find any assets of D within GA to satisfy the judgement, all their assets being in NC, the Full Faith and
Credit Clause of Article 4, the plantiff commences a summary proceeding in a court in NC, records GA's
judgement, and can then obtain a writ of execution from NC's court encoring GA's judgement. against in
assets of BOA located in NC
3. 14th amendment syas no state shall deprive any person of life, libery, or property witjout due process.
Constitution and Choice of Law - Precise Answer ✔✔Constitution shapes US litigation by dictating which
set of laws a court must apply to a dispute. Dicates choice of law in two key ways
1. Article 6 says Consitution and federal laws shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in
every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the consitiutoin or the laws of the state thereby
notwithstanding. This is the supremeacy clause. If congress enacts a statute dealing with a particular
subject, both federal and state courts are required to enforce the federal statute, regardless of whether
there is a contrry state statute or state common law rule.
2. In the absence of a federal controllign statute, the federal court system is required to respect both the
statutory and common law rules of the several states. Ex. If a dispute with a California landlord found its
way to a federal court, which law would the court apply to its dispute?
Personal Jurisdiction - Precise Answer ✔✔Personal jurisdiction concerns a state's ability to assert power
over a defendant in a civil law suit. It became part of consitutional law because of Pennoyer vs Neff.
Background info
- Difficult part of a lawsuit is when a victorius plantiff tries to collect the judgement from the defendant,
who declines to pay. They pay then obtain a writ of execution from the court, which authorizes the
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff

Partial preview of the text

Download Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law - Exam 2025 and more Exams Nursing in PDF only on Docsity!

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SEMESTER 1, 1L YEAR) EXAM 2025

Important way in which the constitution shapes litigation: Jurisdiction - Precise Answer ✔✔In civil procedure, "jurisdiction" is mainly referring to judicial jurisdiction...the power of a court to render a judgement that other courts and governments will reconize and conforce.

  • Subject matter and personal are the two main types of jurisdiction. Both are necessary for any court's power to render a binding decison in a case.
  • 3 parts of the Consitution influence jurisdiciton:
  1. article 3 authorizes the establishment of a system of federal courts and sets the limits of federal judicial authority.
  2. Article 4 requires that "full faith and credit be given in each state to judicial proceedings of every other state." SCOTUS has interpreted this clause that one state must reconize and enforce judgements of other states. Ex. If a GA court enters a judgement for 100,000 against Bank of America but the plantiff cannot find any assets of D within GA to satisfy the judgement, all their assets being in NC, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4, the plantiff commences a summary proceeding in a court in NC, records GA's judgement, and can then obtain a writ of execution from NC's court encoring GA's judgement. against in assets of BOA located in NC
  3. 14th amendment syas no state shall deprive any person of life, libery, or property witjout due process. Constitution and Choice of Law - Precise Answer ✔✔Constitution shapes US litigation by dictating which set of laws a court must apply to a dispute. Dicates choice of law in two key ways
  4. Article 6 says Consitution and federal laws shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the consitiutoin or the laws of the state thereby notwithstanding. This is the supremeacy clause. If congress enacts a statute dealing with a particular subject, both federal and state courts are required to enforce the federal statute, regardless of whether there is a contrry state statute or state common law rule.
  5. In the absence of a federal controllign statute, the federal court system is required to respect both the statutory and common law rules of the several states. Ex. If a dispute with a California landlord found its way to a federal court, which law would the court apply to its dispute? Personal Jurisdiction - Precise Answer ✔✔Personal jurisdiction concerns a state's ability to assert power over a defendant in a civil law suit. It became part of consitutional law because of Pennoyer vs Neff. Background info
  • Difficult part of a lawsuit is when a victorius plantiff tries to collect the judgement from the defendant, who declines to pay. They pay then obtain a writ of execution from the court, which authorizes the

Sheriff to seize any property belonging to the defendant, sell it, and give the resulting money to the plantiff. When that sale occurs, the shriff gives to whomever buys the defendant's property a "sheriff's deed" as eidence of title.

  • Constructive Notice: Consturive in law means fictional or pretend. Defendant's generally recieve servie of processs, but what happens if nobody can find the defendant? In some states a notice is served in the newspaper....which is in fine print and nobody reads..under such conditions notice is "construtive" because it is highly unlikely the defendant will actually see it.
  • Attachment=legal term for an offically sanctioned seizure of property. Real estate, cars, and other property may be "attached." Heading: Pennoyer vs Neff, SOCTUS (1877): background - Precise Answer ✔✔Background: Concerns two lawsuits. First suit grew from an unpaid legal fee. Marcus Neff hired Mitchell, a lawyer living and practiving in Oregon to do some legal work. When Neff failed to pay Mitchell's fee, Mitchell sued him in court. At the time of this 1st suit Neff was, in the court's words, a "non-resident of the state" who was not personally served with process and did not appear (did not come to court or otherwise resist the lawsuit). ...judgement was entered on default on him not answering the complaint, upon a construtive service of summons by publicatin. After this default judgement, Neff aquired 300 acres of land (alledgedly worth $15,000) in Oregon from the federal government. To satisfy his judgement, Mitchell had the sheriff and sell Neff's land. Pennoyer bought it and recieved a sheriff's deed as evidence of title. The sheriff then gave the sales proceeds to Mitchell. Sometime after these events, Neff reappeared, discovered what had become of his land and brought the 2nd lawsuit that we are concerned with. He sued Pennoyer in the US circuit court for the district of Oregon "to recover possesion of the tract of land." As evidence of their respective titles, Neff pointed to the orignal government deed and Pennoyer pointed to the sheriff's deed. The court had to decide whether the first lawsuit and the sheriff's sale had extinguished Neff's title. Lower court condluded that Mitchell's judgement has invalid due to defects in the afadavid on whcih the constructive notice was served. Pennoyer appealed to the US Supremme Court. Penner vs Neff
  • Procedural History: No previous history.
  • Reasoning - Precise Answer ✔✔1. Code of Oregon provides for such constructive notice when action is brought against a non-resident and absent defendant who has property within the state.
  1. Code of Oregon provides for the attachment of property of the non-resident for the sake of recovery of damages.
  2. Court of Oregon declares that no natural person is subject to the jurisdction of the court of the state "unless he appear in the court, or be found within the state, or be a resident thereof, or have property therein; and, in the last case, only to the extent of such property at the time the jurisdiction attached....this means that, in action for money or damages where a defenant does not appear in the

State system overview - Precise Answer ✔✔1. District Court

  1. NC Court of Appeals (one in Raleigh)
  2. NC Supreme Court: If panel divided 2/1, usally a right to appeal. Can also issue a cert, which they can take or not.
  3. US Supreme Court: Can appeal to them if about a federal issue Type of judgement of appellate courts - Precise Answer ✔✔1. Affirmed
  4. Reversed: Can be remanded (sent back and do aover again). Can be reversed in part...reversed in part and affirmed in part. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: In which court system (state or federal) can I file this case? - Precise Answer ✔✔1. State: Persumed to have subject subject matter jurisdiction over all lawsuits expect were there is a stature taking it to the federal courts. Defualt is the state court (expect for something like copyright)
  5. Federal courts: Courts of limited SM jurisdiction. Courts of limited SM jurisdiction. Permitted not to have jurisdiciton unless.. a.) Federal questions: cases ariring under federal law...can go to federal court, some must b) DIversity: cases between citizens of different states Personal Jurisdiction: In which court can I file this case geographically? - Precise Answer ✔✔- Defendant's relationship to chosen court is the most important thing.
  • Plantiff's relationship to that place and that place in relation to the case is of importance
  • Often multiple courts can have personal jurisdiction over the case; lawyer decides which is best Penner vs Neff (governed Personal jurisdiction until 1945).
  • Facts - Precise Answer ✔✔1. Mitchell, an attorney, sues Neff in Oregon for a $300 legal fee....Neff is no longer in Oregon.
  1. Mitchell cannot physically serve process to him in Oregon because he cannot be found. He can either:
  2. give up or 2. Serve process in whatever state Neff might be in (which he doesn't know)
  3. Service by publication: Put it in newspaer. Neff never sees it and doesn't respond or show up to court. Default judgement for mitchell
  4. Judgement can't be served because he still ins't back. Neff later gets $15,000 worth of land from the government of Oregon.
  1. Mitchell could execute judgement if they find property owned by defendant; sheriff then sells the propety off, giving a "sheriff's deed" to the new owner and getting the proceeds
  2. Pennoyer buys the land and gets the sheriff's deed Case 2
  3. Neff returns and files an ejectment suit to get Pennoyer off his property. It comes down to deed vs deed
  4. Neff COLLATERALLY attacks judgement in case one because its too late to appeal; collateral attacks are not allowed unless you can say that you were the defendant and the court can no jurisdiciton over you in the original case. This is the case Neff makes
  5. Case makes it to the SCOTUS. Did court have pesonal jurisdiction over Neff? SCOTUS said service by publication invalid and no personal jurisdiciotn over Neff. What fact changing would have given the Oregon courts jurisdiction over Neff in the first case? - Precise Answer ✔✔They could have had jurisdiciotn over him if at the outset he had the land instead of aquring it after teh first case was decided.
  • "in rem" (against the thing) jurisdiciotn: attachment jurisdiciton. If at the outset Neff owned the land, Mitchell could have pursued the action by "attaching" the land at the beginning of teh case. Plantiff first has to find land then get an order of attachment. This freezes the property until the case is resolved. Gives judge jurisdiciton up to the value of the land.
  • "in personam" personal jurisdiciotn: Contrast to "in rem"...requires valid service process where you have a judgement you can keep for 20 years or until it gets paid (not just sell and get what you get). Mitchell required to have in personam jurisdiction from service by publication. Oregon court did not have valid in personam jurisdiction. Penner vs Neff Issue:, holding, and principals Did the Oregon court have valid "in personal" personal jurisdiction against Neff that would have justified allowing them to attach and sell his later-aquired land on behalf of Mitchell? - Precise Answer ✔✔Holding: No.
  • SCOTUS renounced territoral approach to PJ. Says states are soverign entites
  1. Every state posses personal jurisdiciton and soveringty over persons in its territory.
  2. State can't excercise personal jurisdiciton over persons not in its territory.
  • "In personam" jurisdiction requires a valid serving of process. Because Neff wasn't in the geographic confines state, the Oregon court didn't have valid pesonal jurisdiction over Neff and thus couldn't serve valid process. Therefore, without in personam jurisdiciotn as justification, the court erred in attaching the land and selling it to Pennoyer.
  • Now: Due process requires only that in order to have "in personam" jurisdiction against defendant, if he's not within the geographic boundaires, he has to have certain minimum contacts within it. For a corporation (a legal entity), unlike an individual, its prescence within and without the state can be manifested only by indivdiauls authorized by it.
  • Final Holding: Washington may maintain present suit "in personam" to collect the tax laid upon the excercise of the privledge of employing appellant's salesman within the state. Review of established in Neff V. Pennoyer - Precise Answer ✔✔- If D is served personally within forum state, then court has personal jurisdition over defendant (this is still good)
  • If D cannot be served personally within the forum state, then the court of teh forum state cannot asset PJ over defendant. This is no longer good. International shoe rejects this and sets up a new analysis for decdieing if an out-of-state defendant can have PJ asserted over them (minimum contacts) International Shoe
  • No state can life, liberty, or property without due process. Due Process controls...makes sure out of state resident's due rpocess rights are protected
  • To assert perosnal jurisdciton, you have to have due process. Due Process=fundamental fairness
  • Minimum contact rule = If enough contact with forum state, its fair. Minimum=satisfies fairplay and substantial justice McGee:
  • Contract as minimum contact: Look at contract and see if it adds up to minimum contacts....an intimtate, longrun contract would probably be enough to be considered minimum contact.
  • Manifest state interest: look for if state is taking in interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. Hanson:
  • Personal Availment contact: Contact that evidences Personal avaliment is contact that engages in activity with premeditation. vs
  • Unilateral 3rd party contact: In Hanson, defendant drug things into FLorida by choosing to move there on her own. Trust comapny continued doing business with her while she lived there, with really the only other option being to resing. Was ruled that this type of contact did not satisfy the minimum contact rule

World Wide Volkswagon:

  • Perosnal availment and forseeability: could they have forseen their car (a mobile, portable prodcut) would end up in Oklahoma and does this satisfy the minimum contact rule? No, foreseeability isn't product ending up somewhere or benefitin from it bein Analysis for Minimum contacts test for Neff v. Pennoyer - Precise Answer ✔✔- When contacts relate to the matter of the lawsuit it matters more...Neff V. Pennoyer was exact....was about salespeople and it was about employment
  • Test
  1. Enumerative list of contacts: 11-13 salespoeple making over 31K per year in comissions; would rent showrooms; would reimburse them; regular contacts with headquaters
  2. What's not true: No manufactoring plants or brick and mortar stores, no contact with buyers...just solicit and don't make contact with buyers; invoice from Missouri and not Washingotn General vs Personal Jurisdiction - Precise Answer ✔✔- International shoe was a specific jurisdiciotn case (contacts and lawsuit wa related...suit arises out of contacts which you assert jurisdiction from
  • General Jurisdiction: contacts and lawsuit unrelated....suit doesn't arise out of contacts
  • Ex. L.L. Bean advertises and sells clothes in NC, contacts=selling merch into NC. If sawsuit is about defectivr merch...specific jurisdiciton
  • If an old employee moves to NC and sues for an old age employment suit...could file in NC based on minmum contacts but it would be general jurisdiciton.
  • General jurisdiciotn allows you to sue over anything....so showing more contacts is required. Use to have to show continuous and systematic contacts for general jurisdiction, but now the standard's even higher. , McGee V. International Life Insurance Co, 1957 Procedural History: Facts:
  1. Lowell Franklin (CA resident) purchased life insurnance policy from then one company, which was later aquired by Internaitonal Life. Continued his policy with international life and until his death in 1950 paid premiums from his CA home to their office in Texas
  2. When beneficary notified Internaional Life of his death, it refused to pay, claiming he committed suicide. Insurer had no office or agent in CA.

Staffer V. Heitner, 1977

  • Procedural history:
  • Facts:
  1. Heitner, a nonrsident of DE, is owner of a share of stock in Greyhound ,a business incorporated in DE with headquaters in AR
  2. Files a shareholder's deritivative suit in New Castle County, DE in which he named 28 execs defendants in what were accusations that they had violated the duties of Greyhound by causing it and its subsiduary to engage in actions that resulted in an antitrust suit, activites which alledgdly took place in OR.
  3. With the suit, filed a motion of the sequestration of the DE property of teh indivdiual defendants. Supported with affidavidt stating the individual defendants were nonresidents of DE.
  4. Sequestor seixzed 82,000 shares of their Greyhound stock. Record shows that none of teh defendants were physcially present in DE.
  5. All defendants were noticifed by ceritifed mail to their last known adress and by publication in a New Cast - Precise Answer ✔✔ World Wide Volkswagen V. Woodson Facts:
  • Robinson family has hit by a drunk driver in OK during their move from NY to AR
  • Burden of proving jurisdiction is on plantiff,
  • Couple were still ctizens of NY; dfiver had no inusrance; Robinson's sue manufactoer (Volks), World Wide Volkswagon (NY dealer), Audi (German company) Issue and holding - Precise Answer ✔✔Issue:
  • Do Oklahoma courts have jurisdiction over World Wide Volkswagon, a NY citizen. Does the car, an inherently mobile product, being driven in Oklahoma provide enough evidence of World Wide Volkswagon having minimum contacts in OK via personal availment? Holding:
  • Best argument for minmum contacts would be forseeability and perosnal availment...a car is inherently moible and could theoretically drive into any state. Court ruled that this is not the right way to look at personal availment for manufactoers of a moible product like a car....instead the question is "Could you reasonably see your car being in court for a legal dispute in the forum state....this could meet personal availment and minmum contacts standard....but in this case, for OK, it would not have been reaonable to foresee this,,,case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Justice Brenanan's dissent to World Wide Volkswagen....stream of commerce argument - Precise Answer ✔✔- Stream of commerce: effort to reconcile personal availment to forseeability....says there is a stream of commerce across the country , and if you purposefully inject into it, you should forsee that it could end up anywhere....you benefit from the stream of commerce. THIS IS NOT THE LAW.

  • Brennan redefines minimum contact's function (which in this case is now more than just fairness) as:
  1. Requires fairness to defendant
  2. Satisifies soverignty requirement of the states
  • Brennan would have every minimum contact analysis look for:
  1. Minium contacts for fairness (international shoe type requirements...what they are doing in the forum state)
  2. Soverignty contacts: personal availment contacts...mainfested intention to do something in the forum states
  • Brennan argues that entering stream of commerce satisifies personal availment contacts/soveriengthy contacts Daimler AG v. Bauman, SCOTUS, Procedural History: Dismissed by trial court; trial court overturned by 9th circuit; 9th circuit overtunred by SCOTUS.
  1. Baumon and plantiffs, residents of Argentina, brought suit against DaimanChyrstyler AG in the US District court in Northern California. They alledged that Merzedezbenz Argentina, a Daimler subsiduary, collaborated with Argentian forces to kidnap, tortute, and kill MBA workers during an Argentian war.
  2. Baumon, et al were the plantiffs or closely related to the plantiffs. Damiler was a German company. Actions alledgly took place outside of the US. Baumon, et al asserted teh Northern California District Court's PJ over their subsiduary, Mercedes-benz USA, which was incoprorated in DE and had its principal place of business in NJ. MBUSA distirbuted cars to all 50 states. and had various facilites and offices in CA.
  3. Daimler filed a motion to dismiss the claims bas - Precise Answer ✔✔Issue:
  • Can general jurisdiciton be asserted if the corporation's affliations with the forum state are not continuous and systematic? Holding: No. Can assert GJ if the corporation's affliations with the forum state are so contiuous and systematic that they are considered to be at home in the state. Although they distribute cars to and have cars in CA, they dsitrbute cars to every state...which meant that this suit could theoreticallt be heard in every state.

There is a website of a bookstore in a small MA town. Crazy lawsuit of alledged invasion of privacy based on book. Move to dismiss based on lack or jurisdictoin. - Precise Answer ✔✔- zippo contiuam (used by any internet case):info only...interaction...does business

  • They do business: 3.9 million nationally. Volume of business with NE (forum state) is $614 .87 over 3 years
  • Qualifty of website tends to favor jurisdiction anywhere...issue is the quantity..only trival quantity of sale in forum state. NAture and quantity of website and, further pulling down teh assetion of jurisdciton, he's physically in MA.
  • 4th andnfinally, Court says contacts are about the buying of books...she asserting something about content in book...court said not related...only related in the most general way.
  • Rejected Caulder test (which is also used with zippo continuam in a lot of intenet cases)...said we have stay at home plantiff in forum state,,but no pesonal avaliment in the form of targeting like when the national inquirer wrote about someone they knew to be in CA.
  • Internet jurisdiction: we put it on the "zippo continuam" and see where it is. Does have business, which is faovrable...but its minimal business and not rleated to the claim that she is making...this doesn;t created jurisdiction. Caulder test also rejected because of unproven of knowledge of her in Ne and intent to target her. Shirley Jones case - Precise Answer ✔✔- sitting home minding own business and national inquirier says she's an alcoholic and can't work anymore.
  • NI said they're in NY and have nothing to do with CA. court said they knew she was in CA and targeted her and
  • Caulder Test: Are they inentioanllly targeting someone; way to apply personal availment for minimum contacts test in teh context of a case about an intentional tort Minimum contacts 2 prone test: - Precise Answer ✔✔1. Fairness:
  1. Personal Availment: Specific Jurisdiction defined - Precise Answer ✔✔Claim arises out of, is caused by, or relates to the D's forum state contacts that the P relies on for pesonsl jurisdiction.
  • General: claim is unrlated to the contacts that support PJ
  • Ex. LL Bean has massive contacts in NC related to promoting or selling their merch...suing for defective merch is a specific jurisdiciton claim. Former worker claiming age jursidiciotn and suing in NC is a GG claim

Personal jursidciton requires minimum contacts...this is enough if your calim arises out of,is caused by, or rlates to teh D's forum state contacts that the P relies on for PJ.

    • Precise Answer ✔✔ Bristiol Myes Squib and relatedness standard - Precise Answer ✔✔- Daimler cut way back on where GJ can be established
  • Court and parties assumed that claim and contacts were unrealted, so GJ was required
  • Bristol Myers Squib elaborates on what it means for lcaim to arise out of/be related to D's forum contacts
  • Ps' lawyers filed 678 consolidated individual cases...not a class action...86 residents + 592 nonresidents) v. BMS in CA state court
  • Cases alleged injury from Plavix side effects
  • BMS in incorporated in DE and PPB/HQ in NY
  • BMS has huge contacts with CA...massive plavix sales, research, and lab facilites...MC were uncontested...BUT this isn't a SJ case for the nonresident P's. They didn't obtain, take or get injured by Plavix in C, so their claims don't arise out of/rlate to BMS' CA contacts
  • Fails as a GJ case because BMS isn't at home in CA...neitehr incorproated nor headqueted in CA
  • P's lawyers chose CA as a plantiff-friendly ofrum to bring 678 individiaul suits, all but 86 out of state P's; done because a plantiff friendly state; any of the nonresidents could've gotten SJ in their home states, so nobody was denied access to the courts...but a single suit is not as attrative to a lawyer...expensive case requiring expert evidencce...nonetheless, BMS seemed an exsistential threat to the longstanding meaning of SG...Ford sorts it out...things go back to nomral. Ford V. Montana 8th Judicial Court - Precise Answer ✔✔- Two state-court cases consolidated for appeal befoer SCOTUS, both allege that defects in Ford vechicles casued accident and injury in P's home state
  • MT: P killed: MN: Plantiff seriously injured
  • Ford moves to dismiss for lack of PJ; state courts and Supremem Court deny motion
  • Ford concedes it does substanital business in both states, even conceeding purposeful availment. They argue this ins't a specific jurisdiction case, citing BMS: F says that the plantiff's claim must be caused by its forum activities....meaning, F would've had to design, manufactuere or sell the far in the accident in the forum state not cars in geneal. Since that wasn't true, plantiff's are relegated to general jurisdiction. But F isn't "at home" in MT or MN...that would only be DE and MI (principal place of business).
  • Supreme Court: disagrees. For SJ, case need onlybe related to F's forum state contacts...that standard is clearly met hre...P's were injured by the same catergory of product (cars) that "F extensively promoted, sold, and serviced in MT and MN" Also important that P's sued "in the most natural state" where they