Civil Procedure
- Teply, Whitten
- 2nd Edition
- ISBN: 1566629799
| Page | Case Name | Citation | Court | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66 | Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley | 211 U.S. 149 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1908 |  Download |
| 179 | Pennoyer v. Neff | 95 U.S. 714 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1877 | Download |
| 202 | International Shoe v. Washington | 326 U.S. 310 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 | Download |
| 205 | Shaffer v. Heitner | 433 U.S. 186 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1977 | Download |
| 223 | Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall | 466 U.S. 408 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1983 | Download |
| 232 | Hanson v. Denckla | 357 U.S. 235 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 | Download |
| 233 | World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson | 444 U.S. 286 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1980 | Download |
| 236 | Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz | 471 U.S. 462 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1985 | Download |
| 238 | Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court | 480 U.S. 102 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 | Download |
| 261 | McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. | 355 U.S. 220 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1957 | Download |
| 268 | Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. | 339 U.S. 306 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1950 | Download |
| 357 | Piper Aircraft v. Reyno | 454 U.S. 235 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1981 | Download |
| 401 | Erie Railroad v. Tompkins | 304 U.S. 64 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1938 | Download |
| 415 | Guaranty Trust Co. v. York | 326 U.S. 99 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 | Download |
| 421 | Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative | 356 U.S. 525 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 | Download |
| 443 | Hanna v. Plummer | 380 U.S. 460 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1965 | Download |
| 507 | Conley v. Gibson | 355 U.S. 41 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1957 | Download |
| 746 | Hickman v. Taylor | 329 U.S. 495 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1947 |
| Case Information | Fact Summary | Rule of Law |
|---|---|---|
|
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley Supreme Court of the United States, 1908 211 U.S. 149 Pg. 66 |
The plaintiffs agreed to release their claims for damages against the defendant railroad in return for lifetime passes on the railroad. 36 years later, the defendant refused to renew the passes and the plaintiffs brought suit. | A case raising a federal defense, but no federal claim, cannot be brought in federal district court and is not a sufficient foundation for federal jurisdiction. Arguments using a federal law in an "anticipated defense," are not grounds for federal jurisdiction because an official defense in a lawsuit in not known until the defendant files their answer. |
|
Pennoyer v. Neff Supreme Court of the United States, 1877 95 U.S. 714 Pg. 179 |
Mitchell sued Neff for attorneys fees. Neff was out of town. Mitchell acquired Neff's property through a Sheriff's deed and then sold the property to Pennoyer. Neff sued to get land back. | Judgments in personam without personal service of process shall not be upheld. Judgments in rem with only constructive service may be upheld. |
|
International Shoe v. Washington Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 326 U.S. 310 Pg. 202 |
Appellant, a Delaware corp., has principle business in Missouri. It employs agents who live in the state of Washington, who solicit contracts but are not allowed to enter into them. | "Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend the 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" |
|
Shaffer v. Heitner Supreme Court of the United States, 1977 433 U.S. 186 Pg. 205 |
Plaintiff buys one share of Greyhound stock and then sues the board in Delaware for breach. | "The standard for determining whether an exercise of jurisdiction over the interests of persons is consistent with the Due Process Clause is the minimum contacts standard elucidated in International Shoe." |
|
Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall Supreme Court of the United States, 1983 466 U.S. 408 Pg. 223 |
Helicopteros - a Columbian company that was providing transportation services in Peru - was sued when one of their helicopters crashed, killing four U.S. citizens. The victims' decedents sued Helicopteros, among others, for wrongful death in the state of Texas. | "Even when the cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the foreign corporation's avities in the forum State, due process is not offended by a State's subjecting the corporation to its in personam jurisdiction when there are sufficient contacts between the State and the foreign corporation." In this case, the suit was not related to Helicopteros' contacts in Texas, and the contacts were insufficient to establish the requirement of "sufficient contacts." The judgment was reversed. |
|
Hanson v. Denckla Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 357 U.S. 235 Pg. 232 |
The case arose over a dispute between three sisters, whose mother had died. The mother, Mrs. Donner, established a trust in Delaware and then subsequently moved to Florida, where she spent the remainder of her life. The principle issue was whether the Delaware or Florida courts had jurisdiction over the assets of the trust. The issue was hotly contested, because if Florida had jurisdiction, two daughters inherited the trust. If Delaware had jurisdiction, the daughters would have to share the trust equally. The Court held that Florida did not have jurisdiction. | To be considered a resident of a state, the individual must “purposefully avail" themselves of activities and benefits in the forum state. |
|
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson Supreme Court of the United States, 1980 444 U.S. 286 Pg. 233 |
Plaintiff buys a car from a dealership (defendant) in New York. In a fit of manifest destiny, plaintiff drives his family cross country, only to be rear-ended in Oklahoma. To add injury to insult, the car catches fire, severely burning plaintiff's wife and two children. Plaintiff sues dealership in Oklahoma state court. | In order for a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must exist "minimum contacts" between defendant, the forum, and the claim. Whereas a defendant's "purposeful availment" of a forum state's laws and privileges satisfies the minimum contacts test, "foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction." |
|
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz Supreme Court of the United States, 1985 471 U.S. 462 Pg. 236 |
Defendant established a Burger King franchise and then failed to pay rent. | A defendant is subject to suit in a forum if the defendant purposefully avails himself of that forum. |
|
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 480 U.S. 102 Pg. 238 |
Plaintiff is riding motorcycle when back tire blows out, causing severe injury and the death of plaintiff's wife. Plaintiff files suit in California state court against Taiwanese manufacturer of tire tube, who then files cross claim against the Japanese corporation (defendant) that manufacturers another component of the tire tube. | Defendant's "awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State," alone, is not sufficient to constitute a "substantial connection between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts." Additional conduct is necessary, such as: "(a) designing the product for the market in the forum State, (b) advertising in the forum State, (c) establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or (d) marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State." |
|
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. Supreme Court of the United States, 1957 355 U.S. 220 Pg. 261 |
McGee, a California resident, bought life insurance from defendant, a Texas corporation, who had solicited defendant through the mail. Defendant refused to pay when McGee died. | Mail is sufficient to establish minimum contacts when the claim is related to the defendant's activity in the state. |
|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Supreme Court of the United States, 1950 339 U.S. 306 Pg. 268 |
Trust fund proceeding is announced in local paper and is challenged because of sufficiency of notice. | Notice must be reasonable. |
|
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno Supreme Court of the United States, 1981 454 U.S. 235 Pg. 357 |
A small plane crash in Scotland. Scottish relatives sued the American manufacturers. The defendant removed the case to Federal Court. Then under FRCP Section 1404 the case was transferred to a different judicial district. | A claim will be dismissed on a forum non conveniens motion if the "burden and oppressiveness" to the defendant is out of proportion to the convenience of the plaintiff. |
|
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Supreme Court of the United States, 1938 304 U.S. 64 Pg. 401 |
Tompkins (plaintiff), strolling alongside the railroad in PENNSYLVANIA, has his arm severed by a passing train (Erie Railroad, defendant). Plaintiff files suit in federal district court in NEW YORK. Judge applies "general [tort] law," instead of Pennsylvania state tort law, in deciding the case. Erie appeals. | Federal courts must follow and apply state statutes and case law in deciding cases unless the case is governed by federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution. NOTE: Although federal courts must follow SUBSTANTIVE state law, the Erie decision implies that federal courts may still apply federal PROCEDURAL rules. [Caution: Later cases erode this distinction.] |
|
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 326 U.S. 99 Pg. 415 |
Plaintiff brings action in equity against defendant in federal court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. The facts of the case deal with bonds and finance, but in the aftermath of Erie v. Tompkins, the dilemma is clear: Under the law of the forum state, the statute of limitations bars the suit. Under federal procedure, however, the statute of limitations would not bar the suit. | In both actions at law and in equity, if a procedural issue "substantially affects" the outcome of the litigation, a federal court must apply the procedural law of the forum state. [CAUTION: Hanna v. Plumer, which the Supreme Court decides after Guaranty Trust v. York, reinstates much of the federal courts' authority to apply federal procedural law, even if the procedural law affects the outcome.] |
|
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 356 U.S. 525 Pg. 421 |
Plaintiff, a statutory employee, was injured on a construction job for the defendant. | In determining whether to use state or federal procedue, the court will consider the following: (1) whether the state practice is an "integral part" of state law and "bound up with the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties"; (2) whether a competing federal policy outweighs the interest in the objective of consistent decisions in state and federal court or the state's interest in its own practice; and (3) whether the application of the federal practice is certain to produce a different result than the application of state practice. |
|
Hanna v. Plummer Supreme Court of the United States, 1965 380 U.S. 460 Pg. 443 |
Plaintiff files suit in federal court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff serves the summons and complaint to defendant, but the method of service is inadequate per state procedural law. According to Rule 4 (federal), however, the service is adequate. District court applies state procedural law and grants defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals. | Federal courts shall employ the Federal Rules of Procedure, unless the rule in question is unconstitutional. "To hold that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure must cease to function whenever it alters the mode of enforcing state-created rights would be to disembowel either the Constitution's grant of power over federal procedure or Congress' attempt to exercise that power in the Enabling Act." |
|
Conley v. Gibson Supreme Court of the United States, 1957 355 U.S. 41 Pg. 507 |
African American members of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks brought a claim against its local union of the Brotherhood (Local Union 28, their designated bargaining agent) for failure to represent them fairly and without discrimination. | A complaint only need contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FRCP 8(a)(2). Such a statement must simply "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." "A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove NO set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." |
|
Hickman v. Taylor Supreme Court of the United States, 1947 329 U.S. 495 Pg. 746 |
Defendant interviewed several witnesses on his own after the public hearing had alreadt been done. The Plaintiff then requested discovery of the information that D obtained from these private interviews in a separate interrogatory. The Defendant refused the request claiming privilege. | The work product of an attorney is not discoverable unless the complaining party can show necessity or justification: mental impression, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories are never discoverable. The duty to supplement answers to interrogatories is excused only if the information at issue has already been revealed through other discovery devices. (FRCP 26(b)(3)) |
© 2010 Courtroom Connect, Inc. All rights reserved.