T
T
T

Civil Procedure

Yeazell
6th Edition
ISBN: 0735545111
Page Case Name Citation Court Audio
6 Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc. WL 21555767 United States District Court, Kansas, 2003 Download
13 Bridges v. Diesel Service, Inc. 3 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 914 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1994 Download
15 Bell v. Novick Transfer Co. 17 F.R.D. 279 United States District Court, D. Maryland, 1955 Download
24 Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. 11C Music 202 F.R.D. 229 United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, 2001 Download
31 Butler v. Rigby 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4618 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 1998 Download
35 Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co. 927 F.2d 163 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1991 Download
42 Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment 806 F.2d 1545 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1987 Download
46 Rush v. City of Maple Heights 167 Ohio St. 221, 147 N.E.2d 599, cert denied, 358 U.S. 814 Supreme Court of Ohio, 1958 Download
51 Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader 102 F.2d 702 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1939 Download
61 Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714 Supreme Court of the United States, 1877 Download
77 International Shoe v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 Download
84 McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. 355 U.S. 220 Supreme Court of the United States, 1957 Download
85 Hanson v. Denckla 357 U.S. 235 Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 Download
87 Shaffer v. Heitner 433 U.S. 186 Supreme Court of the United States, 1977
98 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson 444 U.S. 286 Supreme Court of the United States, 1980 Download
107 Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court 480 U.S. 102 Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 Download
114 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz 471 U.S. 462 Supreme Court of the United States, 1985 Download
120 Pavalovich v. Superior Court 29 Cal. 4th 262, 58 P.3d 2 Supreme Court of California, 2002 Download
126 Coastal Video Communications Corp. v. The Staywell Corp. 59 F. Supp. 2d 562 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, 1999 Download
132 Burnham v. Superior Court 495 U.S. 604 Supreme Court of the United States, 1990 Download
141 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute 499 U.S. 585 Supreme Court of the United States, 1991 Download
146 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. 339 U.S. 306 Supreme Court of the United States, 1950 Download
160 Gibbons v. Brown 716 So. 2d 868 Florida District Court of Appeals, 1998 Download
166 Dee-K Enterprises, Inc., v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. 982 F. Supp. 1138 United States District Court, Eeastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. 1997
170 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno 454 U.S. 235 Supreme Court of the United States, 1981 Download
182 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley 211 U.S. 149 Supreme Court of the United States, 1908 Download
193 Redner v. Sanders 2000 WL 1161080 United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 2000 Download
198 Saadeh v. Farouki 107 F.3d 52 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1997
207 Jin v. Ministry of State Security 254 F.Supp.2d 61 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2003 Download
214 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis 519 U.S. 61 Supreme Court of the United States, 1996 Download
224 Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 Supreme Court of the United States, 1938 Download
232 Guaranty Trust Co. v. York 326 U.S. 99 Supreme Court of the United States, 1945
235 Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative 356 U.S. 525 Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 Download
237 Hanna v. Plummer 380 U.S. 460 Supreme Court of the United States, 1965 Download
245 Semtek Intl. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 531 U.S. 497 Supreme Court of the United States, 2001 Download
270 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell 538 U.S. 408 Supreme Court of the United States, 2003
282 Sigma Chemical Co. v. Harris 605 F. Supp. 1253 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, 1985 Download
318 Fuentes v. Shevin 407 U.S. 67 Supreme Court of the United States, 1972
341 Haddle v. Garrison 525 U.S. 121 Supreme Court of the United States, 1998 Download
387 King Vision Pay Per View v. Dimitri's Restaurant 180 F.R.D. 332 Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1998 Download
400 Moore v. Baker 989 F.2d 1129 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1993 Download
402 Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation 159 F.R.D. 16 United States District Court for the Western District of New York, 1994 Download
409 Davis v. Precoat Metals 2002 WL 1759828 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, 2002 Download
411 Steffan v. Cheney 920 F.2d 74 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1990 Download
427 Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp. 71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 705 U.S. District Court District of Kansas, 1996 Download
438 Hickman v. Taylor 329 U.S. 495 Supreme Court of the United States, 1947
467 Peralta v. Heights Medical Center 485 U.S. 80 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Download
486 Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein 516 U.S. 367 (1996) U.S. Supreme Court
492 Kalinauskas v. Wong 151 F.R.D. 363 (D. Nev. 1993) United States District Court for the District of Nevada, 1993 Download
501 Floss v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc. 211 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2000) United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2000 Download
504 Lyster v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc. 239 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2001) United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2001 Download
528 Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (1998) 154 F.3d 1037 (1998)
532 McKey v. Fairbairn 345 F.2d 739 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (1965)
539 In re Boston's Children First 244 F.2d 164 United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (2001) Download
550 Chauffers, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry 494 U.S. 558 (1990) United States Supreme Court, 1990
562 Amoco Oil Co. v. Torcomian 722 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1983) United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1998 Download
584 Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad 39 Utah 617 Supreme Court of Utah, 1911 Download
Case Information Fact Summary Rule of Law
Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc.
United States District Court, Kansas, 2003
WL 21555767
Pg. 6 		Tractor driven by Masters (defendant) collides with Creal's (plaintiff) van, killing Creal. Hawkins (plaintiff's representative) files suit in federal court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. All agree that defendant is a citizen of Kansas. Hawkins asserts that Creal was a citizen of Missouri (born and raised there; still used mother's Missouri address for certain forms; floating intention to move back to Missouri). Defendant moves to dismiss case for lack of diversity jurisdiction, arguing that Creal was a citizen of Kansas (Creal had moved in with his wife in Kansas). "For purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists, a person is a 'citizen' of the state in which he or she is 'domiciled.' For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one's intent to remain there."
Bridges v. Diesel Service, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1994
3 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 914
Pg. 13 		The plaintiff brought a suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. "[T]he Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies...." "Rule 11 is violated only if, at the time of signing, the signing of the document filed was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances."
Bell v. Novick Transfer Co.
United States District Court, D. Maryland, 1955
17 F.R.D. 279
Pg. 15 		The infant plaintiff was involved in a car accident with the defendant. "Rule 8, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc.,...requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'"
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. 11C Music
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, 2001
202 F.R.D. 229
Pg. 24 		"Plaintiffs, entities engaged in publishing, recording, and distributing music, bring this action against over 770 named publishing companies, copyright administrators, record labels, entertainment companies, copyright clearance companies, and performance rights organizations. Plaintiffs assert a variety of claims arising out of numerous instances of what they describe as the "sampling" of music in which they claim an ownership interest..." "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) provides that: all persons ... may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action."
Butler v. Rigby
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 1998
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4618
Pg. 31 		Plaintiffs and defendants were involved in a car accident. As part of discovery, the defendants asked for patient records from the physicians that treated the injured parties. "...The court may also restrict discovery if it concludes that 'the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.'... Further, the federal rules provide that the court 'may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)."
Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1991
927 F.2d 163
Pg. 35 		Husband of plaintiff went to Bangkok in 1980. He was never seen again. The plaintiff had her husband legally declared dead. The plaintiff then tried to recover on an insurance policy which provided coverage in the event of accidental death. There was no evidence of accidental death. "Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"
Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1987
806 F.2d 1545
Pg. 42 		"Plaintiff James L. Norton was injured while using a riding lawn mower manufactured by defendant Snapper Power Equipment. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to Snapper on Norton's strict liability claim." "The test for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same as the test for granting a directed verdict. The court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and should grant the judgment notwithstanding the verdict only where the evidence so strongly and favorably points in favor of the moving party that reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict."
Rush v. City of Maple Heights
Supreme Court of Ohio, 1958
167 Ohio St. 221, 147 N.E.2d 599, cert denied, 358 U.S. 814
Pg. 46 		Plaintiff was riding on the back of her motorcycle, being driven by her husband. The motorcycle hit a pothole. She sued the city for negligence in the maintenance of the roads and received a judgment in the amount of $100. The city appealed and the judgment was affirmed. The plaintiff then attempted to sue the city again for injuries arising out of the same accident. She received a jury verdict in the amount of $12,000. During the trial, the Court charged the jury that the issues of the defendant's negligence were not at issue, because they had previously been settled in favor of the plaintiff. When a person suffers both personal injuries and property damage stemming from the same tort, only one cause of action arises.
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1939
102 F.2d 702
Pg. 51 		"The defendants in an action for treble damages under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act ... have appealed from an order of the court below made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for the discovery and production by them of documents for inspection, copying and photographing by the plaintiff for use at the trial of the action." "...An order of this nature is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable."
Pennoyer v. Neff
Supreme Court of the United States, 1877
95 U.S. 714
Pg. 61 		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. 77 		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.'"
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of the United States, 1957
355 U.S. 220
Pg. 84 		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.
Hanson v. Denckla
Supreme Court of the United States, 1958
357 U.S. 235
Pg. 85 		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.
Shaffer v. Heitner
Supreme Court of the United States, 1977
433 U.S. 186
Pg. 87 		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."
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Supreme Court of the United States, 1980
444 U.S. 286
Pg. 98 		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."
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
Supreme Court of the United States, 1987
480 U.S. 102
Pg. 107 		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."
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
Supreme Court of the United States, 1985
471 U.S. 462
Pg. 114 		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.
Pavalovich v. Superior Court
Supreme Court of California, 2002
29 Cal. 4th 262, 58 P.3d 2
Pg. 120 		Defendant posted DVD decryption code on his web site, enabling public to circumvent plaintiff's technology contained on the DVDs. Plaintiff, a California corporation, sues defendant in California state court. Defendant lives and works in Texas, and has no contacts with California (other than the cyber domino effect of his actions). In INTERNET cases, the determination of personal jurisdiction adheres to a "sliding scale analysis: At one end of the spectrum ... if the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end ... a passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction. The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site."
Coastal Video Communications Corp. v. The Staywell Corp.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, 1999
59 F. Supp. 2d 562
Pg. 126 		Plaintiff and defendant produced similar products (CD-ROM based employee training manuals). Plaintiff sued for declaratory judgment that they did not infringe defendant's copyright. A corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in a state if the corporation is either incorporated or headquartered in that state or if the corporation conducts "substantial activity" in that state.
Burnham v. Superior Court
Supreme Court of the United States, 1990
495 U.S. 604
Pg. 132 		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.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
Supreme Court of the United States, 1991
499 U.S. 585
Pg. 141 		The Shutes bought a cruise ticket. The contract - which was attached to the ticket - stated that the forum for litigation would be Florida. The Shutes sued in Washington district court. The Court will enforce consent to a jurisdiction.
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
Supreme Court of the United States, 1950
339 U.S. 306
Pg. 146 		Trust fund proceeding is announced in local paper and is challenged because of sufficiency of notice. Notice must be reasonable.
Gibbons v. Brown
Florida District Court of Appeals, 1998
716 So. 2d 868
Pg. 160 		Car accident where Gibbons gave Mr. Brown bad directions, which played a role in a car accident. Gibbons sued Mr. Brown in Florida. Mrs. Brown sued Gibbons in Florida. Gibbons was a resident of Texas and Mr. & Mrs. Brown were residents of Florida. In order to have jurisdiction, the defendant must have contacts with the forum state.
Dee-K Enterprises, Inc., v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.
United States District Court, Eeastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. 1997
982 F. Supp. 1138
Pg. 166 		American bungee companies sue foreign "rubber thread" companies for conspiracy and antitrust. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1391 (d) 2013 aliens can be sued anywhere; sec 1391 (b) (3) 2013 one of the American distributors resided in Virginia.
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno
Supreme Court of the United States, 1981
454 U.S. 235
Pg. 170 		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.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
Supreme Court of the United States, 1908
211 U.S. 149
Pg. 182 		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.
Redner v. Sanders
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 2000
2000 WL 1161080
Pg. 193 		Plaintiff brought action in Federal Court under diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff claimed he resides in France and is California resident. Defendant is from New York. The burden of proof falls on the plaintiff to show that he/she is a citizen of a foreign country or a domiciled in a different State than defendant to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Saadeh v. Farouki
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1997
107 F.3d 52
Pg. 198 		Plaintiff, a Greek citizen, lent money to defendant, a Jordanian living in Maryland. Under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332 (a), for Federal Courts to have diversity jurisdiction, at least one party must be a "citizen of a State." The statute provides that, "an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled."
Jin v. Ministry of State Security
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2003
254 F.Supp.2d 61
Pg. 207 		Falun Gong practitioners sue China for defamation and RICO action. There are Federal issues and state issues. Court applies two part test for supplemental jurisdiction: (1) there must be a common nucleus of operative fact; and (2) it must be fair and efficient to combine state and federal claims.
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis
Supreme Court of the United States, 1996
519 U.S. 61
Pg. 214 		Lewis (plaintiff, Kentucky citizenship) brings suit in STATE court against Caterpillar (defendant, Delaware citizenship) and Whayne Supply (Kentucky citizenship) for injuries suffered while operating a bulldozer. Case is removed to FEDERAL district court, even though there is not complete diversity of citizenship. Despite this mistake, the federal district court overrules Lewis's motion to remand back to state court. Before trial, however, Whayne is dismissed from the case (for reasons not worth getting into), leaving Lewis and Caterpillar as the sole remaining parties to the suit. Caterpillar wins at trial. "A district court's error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time JUDGMENT is entered."
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
Supreme Court of the United States, 1938
304 U.S. 64
Pg. 224 		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. 232 		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. 235 		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. 237 		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."
Semtek Intl. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Supreme Court of the United States, 2001
531 U.S. 497
Pg. 245 		Plaintiff brought a claim in a California state court. The defendant removed in a diversity action. The California federal court, applying California law, dismissed the action because the statute of limitations had run. Plaintiff sued again in Maryland state court, which dismissed because of res judicata. They hold that because federal court would dismiss for res judicata per Fed. R. Civ Proc. 41(b), so must they, regardless of whether California courts would treat as claim precluded or not. A state court need not give a federal court's decision based on another state's laws a broader scope than that state would give it. This is based on federal common law. Need not give same effect federal court would give it unless strong federal interest.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell
Supreme Court of the United States, 2003
538 U.S. 408
Pg. 270 		Campbell (plaintiff) causes a car accident, which kills one and permanently disables another. State Farm (defendant), representing Campbell, turns down victim's settlement offer ($50K) and pushes for trial. Court finds Campbell 100% liable and assesses damages of roughly $190K. State Farm refuses to pay the excess amount. Campbell then joins with the victims and brings a bad faith suit against State Farm. After touring each level of the Utah state court system, the verdict ultimately rests at: compensatory damages of $1 million and punitive damages of $145 million. State Farm appeals. Appellate courts may review DE NOVO awards of punitive damages, adhering to the following three considerations: "(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases." Court goes on to suggest that "few awards exceeding a SINGLE-DIGIT RATIO between punitive and compensatory damages ... will satisfy due process."
Sigma Chemical Co. v. Harris
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, 1985
605 F. Supp. 1253
Pg. 282 		Defendant signs non-compete agreement with employer (plaintiff), which bars defendant from working for any of plaintiff's competitors. A few years later, defendant quits his job and--surprise--goes to work for one of plaintiff's chief competitors. "The determination whether to issue an injunction involves a balancing of the interests of the parties who might be affected by the Court's decision--the hardship on plaintiff if relief is denied as opposed to the hardship to defendant if it is granted. . . . Moreover, the main prerequisite to obtaining injunctive relief is a finding that plaintiff is being threatened by some injury for which he has no adequate legal remedy."
Fuentes v. Shevin
Supreme Court of the United States, 1972
407 U.S. 67
Pg. 318 		Margarita Fuentes financed the purchase of a gas stove and stereo from Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. (Firestone). She made payments for a year and then defaulted, because of a dispute with Firestone over the service policy. Firestone was able to obtain a writ of replevin and seize the goods without Mrs. Fuentes having a chance to respond. Prior to the repossession of property, the one possessing the property must have an opportunity to be heard.
Haddle v. Garrison
Supreme Court of the United States, 1998
525 U.S. 121
Pg. 341 		Defendant makes a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss case for plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If, assuming that all the facts in petitioner's brief are true, petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must grant the 12(b)(6) motion and dismiss the case.
King Vision Pay Per View v. Dimitri's Restaurant
Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1998
180 F.R.D. 332
Pg. 387 		Dimitri's and James Chelios filed what purported to be a response to a complaint filed against them by King Vision Pay Per View. In their answer, instead of following the explicit instructions of Rule 8(b) and replying with either an admittance, denial, or disclaimer (stating they don't know, which is deemed a denial), the defendants simply demanded proof of the claims (as if they said "Prove it"). Court held that all of the allegations of the complaint in which the defendant failed to answer in the proper manner according to Rule 8(b), were considered to be admitted by the defendant as defined by Rule 8(d). The court also placed all future violators on “constructive” notice that their similarly defective pleadings will encounter like treatment.
Moore v. Baker
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1993
989 F.2d 1129
Pg. 400 		Plaintiff consulted with defedant, Dr. Baker, regarding a condition which disrupted the flow of oxygen to her brain. Dr. Baker recommended surgery, which went badly and resulted in the plaintiff being permanently disabled. The defendant moved for summary judgment, because plaintiff had consented to the surgery, and the plaintiff amended the complaint to contain an action alleging negligence in the surgery and post-op care. To successfully apply the Rule 15(c) relation back doctrine, the amended complaint must arise out of the same transaction and occurence.
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation
United States District Court for the Western District of New York, 1994
159 F.R.D. 16
Pg. 402 		Plaintiff was injured while playing basketball at a rehabilitation facility in 1991. He filed suit within the statute of limitations for the negligent maintenance of the basketball court. In 1994, he amended his complaint to include malpractice. The defense alleged that this was barred by the two-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations. Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. 15(c) Relation Back of Amendments. "An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when . . . (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. . ."
Davis v. Precoat Metals
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, 2002
2002 WL 1759828
Pg. 409 		Plaintiff filed suit against Chicago employer for discrimination. Plaintiff filed a motion to discover similar discrimination complaints. "Information is relevant for purposes of Rule 26 'if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence.' Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)."
Steffan v. Cheney
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1990
920 F.2d 74
Pg. 411 		Plaintiff challenges discharge from Navy due to plaintiff's statements that he was gay. Case was dismissed because during discovery plaintiff wouldn't answer questions about his sexual activity. Discovery is relevant if it relates to claims or defenses.
Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp.
U.S. District Court District of Kansas, 1996
71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 705
Pg. 427 		Plaintiff claims sexual harassment against employer and tries to depose co-workers who have nothing to do with the claim about their sexual activity with the defendant. Defendant files a 26(c) motion for protective order. Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 26(c) provides that the court, upon a showing of good cause, "may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." The court orders that the co-workers will not be deposed, but that the defendant will be deposed.
Hickman v. Taylor
Supreme Court of the United States, 1947
329 U.S. 495
Pg. 438 		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))
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center
U.S. Supreme Court
485 U.S. 80 (1988)
Pg. 467 		Heights defectively served Peralta in a suit to recover medical bills. Peralta then failed to appear or answer. Peralta seeks to have the default judgment set aside and his confiscated property returned because the service was invalid under state law. Service of process is so fundamental that it can not be waived, and default judgments entered without proper notice or service must be set aside. "'[O]nly 'wip[ing] the slate clean ... would have restored the petitioner to the position he would have occupied had due process of law been accorded to him in the first place.'"
Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein
U.S. Supreme Court
516 U.S. 367 (1996)
Pg. 486 		After Matsushita acquired MCA, MCA shareholders filed two sets of class action lawsuits. One set was filed in federal court; one set was filed in state court. The state court approved a settlement that granted a "global release of all claims arising" out of the acquisition. Matsushita invoked the state-court judgment as a bar to further prosecution of federal claim under the Full Faith and Credit Act. A federal court must give a state-court settlement judgment the same effect that it would have in the courts of the State in which it was rendered, even if the judgment releases claims that fall under exclusively federal jurisdiction. The Full Faith and Credit Act "is generally applicable in cases in which the state-court judgment at issue incorporates a class-action settlement releasing claims solely within the jurisdiction of the federal courts."
Kalinauskas v. Wong
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, 1993
151 F.R.D. 363 (D. Nev. 1993)
Pg. 492 		Kalinauskas sued her employer for sexual discrimination and seeks to depose a former employee who also filed a similar suit. However, the former employee signed a confidential settlement agreement, which prohibited her from discussing any aspect of her employment. Public interest in preventing the "buying silence of witnesses" and wasteful efforts to generate discovery already in existence outweighs public policy that promotes confidential settlements that can resolve disputes quickly and with little judicial intervention. "While settlement is an important objective, an overzealous quest for alternative dispute resolution can distort the proper role of the court. Futhermore, settlement agreements which suppress evidence violate the greater public policy."
Floss v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2000
211 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2000)
Pg. 501 		Employees signed a form indicating that they would arbitrate all employment-related disputes. The employees then attempted to sue Ryan's for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ryan's sought to compel arbitration. "In deciding whether to compel arbitration of a federal statutory claim, we [the Court of Appeals] initially consider whether the statutory claim is generally subject to compulsory arbitration . . . However, even if arbitration is generally a suitable forum for resolving a particular statutory claim, the specific arbitral forum provided under the arbitration agreement must nevertheless allow for the effective vindication of that claim . . ."
Lyster v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2001
239 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2001)
Pg. 504 		Employee signed form indicating she would arbitrate all employment-related disputes. The employee then attempted to sue Ryan's for sexual harassment. Ryan's sought to compel arbitration. "A dispute must be submitted to arbitration if there is a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement."
Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
154 F.3d 1037 (1998)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (1998)
Pg. 528 		District judge's pretrial order warned parties that failure to comply could result in sanctions. Sander's counsel failed to comply with almost all the requirements of the pretrial order. District court dismissed Sander's action as a sanction for failure to comply with the pretrial order. "Before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order, the district court must consider: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court's need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.'The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.'"
McKey v. Fairbairn
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (1965)
345 F.2d 739
Pg. 532 		Plaintiff sued her landlord after she slipped and fell on a wet floor. Plaintiff contended that the landlord's failure to fix a leaky roof caused her injury. Plaintiff's attorney sought to amend the pretrial order and introduce local housing regulations that required roofs be leakproof. Trial judge denied the motion, and directed a verdict for the defendants. "[T]he trial judge in this case did not abuse his 'justifiably large discretion' in refusing to permit appellant to change her theory during the trial."
In re Boston's Children First
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (2001)
244 F.2d 164
Pg. 539 		District judge gave interview to newspaper reporter and described pending case as "more complex" than a previous one. Judge denied subsequent motion to recuse. Judge found that her comments were permissible by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which allows judges to explain "for public information the procedures of the court." The Code of Judicial Conduct "seeks to balance two competing policy considerations: first, that 'courts must not only be, but seem to be, free of bias or prejudice,'; and second, the fear that recusal on demand would provide litigants with a veto against unwanted judges." Disqualification is "appropriate only when the charge is supported by a factual basis, and when the facts asserted 'provide what an objective, knowledgeable member of the public would find to be a reasonable basis for doubting the judge's impartiality.' Moreover, [the court] allow[s] district court judges a 'range of discretion' in the decision not to recuse. However, [the court] note[s] that the district court should exercise that discretion with the understanding that, 'if the question of whether [the Code] requires disqualification is a close one, the balance tips in favor of recusal.'"
Chauffers, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry
United States Supreme Court, 1990
494 U.S. 558 (1990)
Pg. 550 		Workers sue their union after the union refused to prosecute a grievance. Workers claim that the union violated its duty of fair representation. Workers made a jury demand for all issues triable by a jury; the Union moved to strike the jury demand on the ground that no right to a jury trial exists in a duty of fair representation suit. To determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial, the court must "examine both the nature of the issues involved and the remedy sought. 'First, we compare the statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity. Second, we examine the remedy sought and determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature.'"
Amoco Oil Co. v. Torcomian
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1998
722 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1983)
Pg. 562 		Torcomians operated an Amoco station for several months without a franchise agreement while they were engaged in negotiations with Amoco agents. Amoco originally brought suit and sought both equitable and legal relief from the Torcomians. However, Amoco later attempted to amend its complaint to remove any request for monetary damages, thereby foreclosing the Torcomians' right to a jury trial. It is settled law in this Circuit and elsewhere . . . that even an equitable main claim cannot preclude a jury trial on a legal counterclaim, at least when the counterclaim is compulsory. A rule to the contrary would enable the preemptive filing of a complaint by the holder of an equitable claim, coupled with the doctrine of res judicata, to deprive the holder of a legal claim of his seventh amendment right to a jury trial.
Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad
Supreme Court of Utah, 1911
39 Utah 617
Pg. 584 		Reid brought suit to recover damages for the killing of his cattle by the railroad's trains. Reid alleged that the railroad was negligent in allowing a fence to fall into disrepair, but could not provide specifics about where or when the fence was broken. ". . . [W]here the undisputed evidence of the plaintiff, from which the existence of an essential fact is sought to be inferred, points with equal force to two things, one of which renders the defendant liable and the other not, the plaintiff must fail."