T
T
T

Civil Procedure: Cases, Materials, and Questions

Freer, Perdue
4th Edition
ISBN: 0820562386
Page Case Name Citation Court
27 Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714 Supreme Court of the United States, 1877
42 International Shoe v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 Supreme Court of the United States, 1945
54 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson 444 U.S. 286 Supreme Court of the United States, 1980
73 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz 471 U.S. 462 Supreme Court of the United States, 1985
88 Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court 480 U.S. 102 Supreme Court of the United States, 1987
97 Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall 466 U.S. 408 Supreme Court of the United States, 1983
110 Shaffer v. Heitner 433 U.S. 186 Supreme Court of the United States, 1977
126 Burnham v. Superior Court 495 U.S. 604 Supreme Court of the United States, 1990
165 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. 339 U.S. 306 Supreme Court of the United States, 1950
209 Strawbridge v. Curtiss 7 U.S. 267 Supreme Court of the United States, 1806
241 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley 211 U.S. 149 Supreme Court of the United States, 1908
249 Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson 478 U.S. 804 Supreme Court of the United States, 1986
297 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno 454 U.S. 235 Supreme Court of the United States, 1981
419 Hickman v. Taylor 329 U.S. 495 Supreme Court of the United States, 1947
590 Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 Supreme Court of the United States, 1938
605 Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative 356 U.S. 525 Supreme Court of the United States, 1958
611 Hanna v. Plummer 380 U.S. 460 Supreme Court of the United States, 1965
Case Information Fact Summary Rule of Law
Pennoyer v. Neff
Supreme Court of the United States, 1877
95 U.S. 714
Pg. 27 		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. 42 		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.'"
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Supreme Court of the United States, 1980
444 U.S. 286
Pg. 54 		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. 73 		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. 88 		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."
Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall
Supreme Court of the United States, 1983
466 U.S. 408
Pg. 97 		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.
Shaffer v. Heitner
Supreme Court of the United States, 1977
433 U.S. 186
Pg. 110 		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."
Burnham v. Superior Court
Supreme Court of the United States, 1990
495 U.S. 604
Pg. 126 		The Burnhams were getting divorced. Mrs. Burnham moved from New Jersey to California. Mr. Burnham went to California on business and was served by Mrs. Burnham. States have jurisdiction over nonresident visitors who are physically present in the state.
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
Supreme Court of the United States, 1950
339 U.S. 306
Pg. 165 		Trust fund proceeding is announced in local paper and is challenged because of sufficiency of notice. Notice must be reasonable.
Strawbridge v. Curtiss
Supreme Court of the United States, 1806
7 U.S. 267
Pg. 209 		"Some of the complainants were alleged to be citizens of the state of Massachusetts. The defendants were also stated to be citizens of the same state, excepting Curtiss, who was averred to be a citizen of the state of Vermont, and upon whom the subpoena was served in that state." "The words of the act of congress are, 'where an alien is a party; or the suit is between a citizen of a state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state.'"
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
Supreme Court of the United States, 1908
211 U.S. 149
Pg. 241 		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.
Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
Supreme Court of the United States, 1986
478 U.S. 804
Pg. 249 		Plaintiffs brought a complaint against a manufacturer of the drug Bendectin on 6 counts of negligence. One of the counts was based on a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). When a violation of a federal statute is an element of a state cause of action (and when there is no private federal right of action for the violation), there does not exist a claim "arising under" the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno
Supreme Court of the United States, 1981
454 U.S. 235
Pg. 297 		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.
Hickman v. Taylor
Supreme Court of the United States, 1947
329 U.S. 495
Pg. 419 		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))
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
Supreme Court of the United States, 1938
304 U.S. 64
Pg. 590 		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.]
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative
Supreme Court of the United States, 1958
356 U.S. 525
Pg. 605 		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. 611 		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."