CIVIL PROCEDURE. Prof. Staszewski. Fall 2017
|
|
- Dennis Hunter
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CIVIL PROCEDURE Prf. Staszewski Fall 2017 I. Attack Sheet... 2 II. Outline... 8 Chapter 1: Persnal Jurisdictin... 8 Chapter 2 Subjective-Matter Jurisdictin Chapter 3 Erie Dctrine Chapter 4 Litigatin Chapter 5 Summary Judgement / Directed Verdict / JNOV Chapter 6 Preclusin Chapter 7 Jinder f Claim and Party III. Anntated Rulebk IV. Imprtant Case Brief Use Attack Sheet fr usual essay questin, Outline fr mre cmplicated ne r yu frget the rules. Use Rulebk (mainly the translatin part) fr related multiple-chice questin. Use Imprtant Case Brief fr case cmparisn, if needed.
2 I. Attack Sheet 1. Persnal Jurisdictin (including SJ) - Based n physical presence (why? Cntemprary fairness; traditinal practice) - If nt physical presence Fairness: minimum cntact (cntact, hw related, fair service) svereignty established way: 1) purpseful availment; 2) knws will cause harmful effects within the state; 3) D s cnduct arise ut f r relate t P s claim Arguably stream f cmmerce with cnsideratin by the vlume, the value, and the hazardus character f the cmpnents. ratinale r fairness : 1) vluntarily and knwingly; 2) subject t state fr the benefit they received. Nt by freseeability. Reasnableness: fair play and substantial justice Burden f Defendant; Interest f plaintiff; Interest f frum state; Interest f federal system (internatinal cmity) - Service: Physical presence/in persnam: 1) persnally served with prcess in the state (Pennyer, Burnham); traditinal practice r fairness 2) Serving summns r wavier f service (Fed. Civ. Pr. Rule. 4) In Rem: (Pennyer) Attach prperty + cnstructive ntice: usually adequate (Mullane) Due Prcess Inquiry: abve is true, if P abandn r has caretaker But nt, if the caretaker 2. General Jurisdictin: Nt in sme way but SO cntinuus and systematic cntact with frum state Sense at hme; The curt refused t expand the traditinal limitatin, nly applies GJ t places where it is incrprated and principle place f business. Limited applicatin nt by parent cmpany 3. Subject Matter Jurisdictin: 1. Federal Jurisdictin: Federal Questins - cases that "arise under" federal law Art. III (judicial pwer, certain cases, nly SC and Cngress t lwer federal curts and their jurisdictin), 1331 (all civil actins arising under federal law) It has t be P s riginal cause f claim, nt affirmative defense. Diversity Jurisdictin, 1332 State f United States: Citizenship fr the purpse f diversity jurisdictin is based n dmicile, 1) physical presence AND 2) an intent t remain. Freign state/natin: A resident is NOT citizen f a freign state. Crpratin: The phrase principle place f business in 28 U.S.C refers t the place where a crpratin s high-level fficers direct, cntrl, and crdinate the crpratin s activities. never center test 2. Supplemental Jurisdictin a. Efficiency cmmn nucleus f perative facts b. Exceptin: 1) a nvel r cmplex issue f State law; 2) state law predminates ver the claims f federal law claim; 3) dismiss the federal law claim, nly left state law claim; 4) exceptins 3. [Prcedural] Remval 2
3 a. Exceptin: Defendant cannt remve t federal curt in his hme state. b. Caterpillar: efficiency Under Erie, cnsideratin f finality, efficiency, and ecnmy becme verwhelming At the time f judgement is entered. 4. Erie: state law claim filed at federal curt due t diversity jurisdictin a. Fr substantive law (cause f actin / elements f claim): has t be state law; b. Fr prcedural law, federal law generally gverns c. Questins presented: 1) What is substantive law, what is prcedural law? 2) Fr the prcedural part, when shuld the curt use federal law, when shuld they use state law? d. Framewrk fr analysis: 1) Questin 1: Is it a substantive law r prcedure law questin? 1. Apparent substantive law: elements f the claim state law 2. Prbable prcedure questin r grey area? (Erie) Questin 2 2) Questin 2: Des a federal rule f civil prcedure / a federal statute gvern the situatin NOT a federal practice? 1. Yes Questin 3 a. Questin 3: 1) Is it permissible under Rule Enabling Act: they cannt abridge, enlarge r mdify any substantive right + 2) Is the federal r statute cnstitutinally permissible? i. Yes. Federal law ii. N. state law 2. N Questin 3.1 r 3.2 a. Questin 3.1, Byrd Test: federal practice v. likelihd f different result in state curt i. Balancing Test: State law r federal law b. Questin 3.2, Hanna: Wuld disregarding state law prmte frumshpping r inequitable administratin f the laws? i. Yes, State law ii. N, federal law 5. TRO r PI test: A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctin must establish: a. that he is likely t succeed n the merits; b. that he is likely t suffer irreparable harm in the absence f preliminary relief c. that the balance f equities tips in his favr; d. that an injunctin is in the public interest. e. Reasning: 1) 1) + 2) factrs: reject balancing test: fr 9 th Circuit, if the likelihd f the merits is very high, then just a pssibility f irreparable harm suffices. 2) Balancing Equities: interest f natinal securities v. prtect marine mammals and envirnment. 1. Navy: depends n prfessinal s judgement; used fr 40 years; the nly reliable technlgy fr that purpse; ideal lcatin fr exercise 2. Animal: Curt nly lks at the interest f P (prtectin rganizatin), nt animals themselves. 3) Public Plicy: Curt did nt lk at them, fr bth parties represent Public Interest; if there was any, they did it at 3). 6. Pleading Prblem: a. Nte: all raise under abuse its discretin claim. b. Pleading: 1) legal and factual sufficiency (plausible, nt mere legal cnclusin) 2) Sme specific requirement fr Fraud r misrepresentatin 3
4 3) Mral Litigatin: evidential supprt/nt changing the law/nt fr imprper purpse + curt s discretin f granting sanctin c. Pre-Answer: 1) mtin t dismiss (4 waivable + 3 nn-waivable) 2) judgment n the pleading (delay MTD); strike a mtin t strike d. Answer: 1) Denial: partial denial must be specific + lack inf (deny) + nt deny (admit) 2) Affirmative Defense: e. (Amending Pleading): 1) Befre trial: time requirement; r ther party s cnsent; r curt s rder 2) During and After: 1) curt s rder(bjectin): help n the merits + n prejudice; 2) cnsent: as if this is raised at the utset. 3) Relatin Back: 1) same cnduct; 2) within 120 days; 3) ther party shuld have knwn + n prejudiced. 7. Factual Sufficiency f Claims: a. Disregard mere legal cnclusin (cntra Cnley v. Gibsn) We begin ur analysis by identifying the allegatins in the cmplaint that are nt entitled t the assumptin f truth. b. Assess whether remaining ( well-pleaded ) factual allegatin plausibly give rise t an entitlement t relief ( We next cnsider the factual allegatins in respndent s cmplaint t determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement t relief. ): 1) Is it mre likely than nt that defendant is liable based n the well-pleaded facts? 2) Is there a (significantly?) mre plausible, alternative explanatin? c. Special Requirement: Rule 9 1) In alleging fraud r mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances cnstituting fraud r mistake. Malice, intent, knwledge, and ther cnditins f a persn's mind may be alleged generally. 8. Pleading and mtin: first stage a. (b) representatin t the Curt: (f pleading) 1) nt fr imprper purpse; 2) legal cntentins that are warranted by existing law, r by nnfrivlus argument fr (extending, mdifying, r reversing) existing law r establishing new law; 3) factual cntentins have evidentiary supprt (r have it after discvery); 4) denial f factual cntentin is based n the evidence, r lack f inf. b. (c) sanctin: within the curt's discretin t decide if they want t impse sanctin n ne party 1) mtin by D: 1) separate/independent mtin; 2)21 days safe harbr: 2) nature f sanctin: nnmnetary directives; penalty t curt; payment t D's lawyers' fee. c. (d) nt applicable t discvery 9. Relatin Back: a. Same "cnduct, transactin, r ccurrence" as riginal cmplaint b. The new D has received sufficient "ntice f the actin" within the Rule 4(m) perid (i.e. 120 days frm filling f suit) 1) received such ntice f the actin that it will nt be prejudiced in defending n the merits; and 2) knew r shuld have knwn that the actin wuld have been brught against it, but fr a mistake cncerning the prper party s identity. 10. Discvery: Unless therwise limited by curt rder, the scpe f discvery is as fllws: Parties may btain discvery regarding any nnprivileged matter that is relevant t any party s claim r defense and prprtinal t the needs f the case a. Relevance: 4
5 1) make a material fact mre r less likely t be true 2) directly relate t the claim (e.g. temper management is irrelevant t sexual harassment claim) b. Privilege: 1) Attrney-client privilege: 1. crpratin s lawyer = emplyee s lawyer 2. bss s lawyer emplyee r victim emplyee s lawyer 2) Wrk Prduct privilege: qualified privilege 1. in anticipatin f litigatin. Nt discverable UNLESS: a. They are therwise discverable due t relevance and prprtinality; and b. Substantial need + cannt get it frm ther way 2. Lawyer's cmments (mental impressin, cnclusins, pinins, r legal theries cncerning the litigatin) are nt subject t disclsure. c. Prprtinality: 1) Imprtance f the issues at stake in the actin 2) Whether the burden r expense f the prpsed discvery utweighs its likely benefit 3) The imprtance f the discvery in reslving the issues 4) Parties' relative access t relevant infrmatin 5) The amunt in cntrversy: mnetary damage P sued fr 6) Parties' resurce: hw much mney they culd spend n this case d. (Burden f Discvery: if burden fr bth parties are same) 1) Specifying the recrds that must be reviewed 2) Giving the interrgating party a reasnable pprtunity t examine and audit the recrds and make cpies --> aka, let the P t examine themselves risk f discvery ther ptential lawsuit. 11. Summary Judgement: a. The curt shall grant summary judgment if the mvant shws that there is n genuine dispute as t any material fact and the mvant is entitled t judgement as a matter f law. b. Mvant party shws that the material cited d nt establish the absence r presence f a genuine dispute, r that an adverse party cannt prduce admissible evidence t supprt the fact. c. weigh the evidence in the light mst favrable t nnmving party 1) assuming nn-mvant s testimny is true, whether a reasnable jury wuld render a judgment favr f P. 2) Awful evidence, even if that is true, will nt preclude mving party frm winning. d. Nte: 1) Burden f prf is the same; mving des nt need t negate the claim. 2) Credibility f witness is a factual issue. 3) General evidence cannt disprve specific evidence. 12. Directed Verdict / JNOV + new trial a. If a party has been fully heard n an issue during a jury trial and the curt finds that a reasnable jury wuld nt have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis t find fr the party n that issue. 1) If apple v. range --> range wins (this case, nt s sure evidence v. direct eyewitness) 5
6 2) If range v. range --> jury questin (e.g. there are ther direct eyewitness t shw there was a cllisin, then jury t decide) b. JNOV and/r new trial 1) JNOV means that there was n evidence wuld allw a ratinal jury t favr ne party --> but there is evidence frm P and his witness 2) New trial: (trial curt) the jury is against the weight f evidence 1. T crrect law prcedure (wrng jury instructin r evidence) 2. T crrect what the judge viewed as flawed verdict issue f credibility and discretin. 13. Preclusin a. Claim preclusin: "res judicata" 1) were r prbably culd be decided at the previus lawsuit. 2) Everyne shuld have his wn day in curt 1. Traditinal Apprach: ne suit precludes a secnd where the parties and the cause f actin are identical mutual parties and claims 2. Restatement f Judgement: actins invlved the same cmmn cre f perative facts and the same transactin. 3) Exceptin: adequate representatin 1. Interests are aligned. 2. Party understd herself t be acting a representative capacity (in case fr prtectin f class actin) r the riginal curt tk care t prtect the interest f the nnparty. 3. Ntice given: prcess service b. Issue preclusin: cllateral estppel 1) The issue that has been actually decided. 1. When 1) an issue f fact r law is 2) actually litigated and determined by 3) a valid and final judgment, and 4) the determinatin is essential t the judgment, and the determinatin is cnclusive in a subsequent actin between the parties, whether n the same r a different claim. 2) Preclude the re-litigate f certain issue (nt barred the issue) 3) Defensive nn-mutual Cllateral Estppel: 1. Culd plaintiff have easily jinted the prir actin? 2. Were the stakes in the first lawsuit sufficiently high? (incentive t argue against) 3. Wuld the secnd lawsuit prvide additinal prcedural safeguard? (jury) 4. Are there already incnsistent judgments n the issue? 5. Are there ther reasns t questin the reliability f the prir judgment. 14. Jiner a. Test 1) whether the claim is under civ pr statute? 1. rule 18 (a): jinder f claim (independent r alternative) 2. rule 13: cmpulsry(related) r permissive (unrelated) cunterclaim 3. rule 20(a): jined defendant r plaintiff all abut arises ut f the transactin r ccurrence cunterclaim: that is the subject matter f claim parties: questin f law r fact cmmn t all parties. 2) whether there is jurisdictin? 1. federal questin, 2. diversity citizenship, 3. supplemental jurisdictin: cmmn nucleus f perative facts -- n if there is n cmplete diversity 3) Exceptin (prtectin): embarrassment, delay, expense, r ther prejudice. b. Cnslidatin and Separate Trial: avid delay, t expedite and ecnmize (but n prejudice) 6
7 c. Third party claim: 1) Only applies t party that is legally required t reimburse fr prtin f liability 1. Fr indemnificatin in cntract r cntributin in trt. 2) CANNOT if the D seeks t shift blame t smene else (it was him nt me! ) 7
8 II. Outline Chapter 1: Persnal Jurisdictin Specific Jurisdictin 1. Pennyer v. Neff: a. persnal service and persnal jurisdictin: hw t serve b. in rem (including quasi-in rem) and in persnam jurisdictin c. (Handut): Lack f jurisdictin because he was neither persnally served with prcess in the state (in persnam jurisdictin) nr was his prperty attached prir t the initiatin f the lawsuit (in rem jurisdictin). 2. Internatinal She: a. Persnal Jurisdictin: Minimum Cntact nt quasi-in rem b. General Jurisdictin c. Reasnableness: fair play and substantial justice d. (Handut) Due Prcess requires nly that D have certain minimum cntacts with the frum state such that the maintenance f the suit des nt ffend traditinal ntins f fair play and substantial justice. e. (Handut) Tw categries f in persnam jurisdictin i. General Jurisdictin: when the cntacts are s substantial and f such nature as t justify suit against D n causes f actin arising frm dealing entirely distinct frm thse activities. ii. Special Jurisdictin: 1. Minimum Cntact: 2. Related t the claims: 3. Reasnable frm f ntice: f. EE Nte: i. minimum cntact: lk at the quality and nature f the cntact a single cntact may suffice t PJ. ii. privilege and benefit f frum state respnd t lawsuit the case/claim must arise frm D s cntact with the frum state. 3. Hansn v. Denckla: a. (Handut)Purpsefully avails itself f the privilege f cnducting activities within the frum state, thus invking the benefit and prtectin f its law bligatin requires t respnd t a suit brught t enfrce them. 4. Shaffer v. Heiner: absrbing in rem jurisdictin a. N minimum cntact attach unrelated prperty des nt render jurisdictin (but under Pennyer rule, that is kay) b. D nt rely PJ n persnal service c. (Handut) Exercise f quasi in rem jurisdictin vilated due prcess because D did nt have minimum cntacts with state. All assertins f state curt jurisdictin must be evaluated accrding t the Internatinal She standard. 5. Wrld-Wide Vlkswagen v. Wdsn: stream f cmmerce a. Freseeability is nt a benchmark fr jurisdictin b. Minimum Cntact: i. Purpsefully avail itself fr the privilege f cnduct activities in the frum state ii. Deliver its prduct in the stream f cmmerce with expectatin be purchase. find ut why c. (Handut) Freseeability alne has never been a sufficient benchmark fr persnal jurisdictin under Due Prcess. Rather persnal jurisdictin exists if D purpsefully avails itself f the privilege f cnducting activities in the frum state r delivers its prducts int 8
9 the stream f cmmerce with expectatin that they will be purchase d by cnsumers in the frum state. 6. Asahi v. Superir Curt: a. Majrity: vilatin f reasnableness fair play and substantial justice i. Burden f Defendant; Interest f plaintiff; Interest f frum state; Interest f federal system (internatinal cmity) ii. Balancing Test iii. (Handut) persnal jurisdictin in this case wuld vilate traditinal ntins f fair play and substantial justice because the exercise f jurisdictin wuld be unreasnable, even if minimum cntacts existed. b. Dispute: minimum cntact i. Have t be purpsefully avail itself fr privileges f cnduct activities; (hand ut) purpseful actin by D directed twards the frum state. ii. stream f cmmerce is enugh put the prduct int the stream f cmmerce with expectatin that prduct will be purchase at frum state; (handut) injecting gds int stream f cmmerce with freseeable destinatin. iii. Steven Factr: (handut) by the vlume, the value, and the hazardus character f the cmpnents. c. New Questin: whether exercise f persnal jurisdictin will vilate Due Prcess (fair play and substantial justice)? 7. Burger King v. Rudzewicz a. Sliding Scale: Minimum cntact v. reasnableness (fair play and substantial justice) b. (Handut) fair play and substantial justice: i. Once it has been decided that a D purpsefully established minimum cntacts with the frum state, these cntacts may be cnsidered in light f ther factrs t determine whether they cmprt with fair play and substantial justice. ii. These cnsideratins smetimes serve t establish the reasnableness f jurisdictin upn a lesser shwing f minimum cntacts than wuld therwise be required. iii. Where a D wh purpsefully has directed his activities at frum residents seeks t defeat jurisdictin, he must present a cmpelling case that presence f sme ther cnsideratin wuld render jurisdictin uncnstitutinal. 8. J. McIntyre v. Nicastr a. (4 justices, handut) Due Prcess = lawful pwer = traditinal practice, nt free fall ntin f fundamental fairness i. P s cnsent (waive); ii. citizenship r dmicile/knwingly and cnsistently engage in activities targeted at frum state (general, physical presence); iii. persnal service within the state (physical presence); and purpseful availment (minimum cntact? privilege=respnd t suit) iv. In this case (handut): D did nt take purpse actin that was directed at the frum state (r knwingly and intentinally target its activities at the frum state ) b. (3 dissents) i. (handut)due Prcess = cntemprary ntin f fairness and reasnableness; Nt Svereign Pwer (r Traditin Practice) ii. D was subject t persnal jurisdictin because it puts its prduct in the stream f cmmerce, knwing that it wuld be sld there (irrespective f its use f a natinal distributr). 9. Abduch v. Lpez: a. Sliding Test Interactivity and nature f the cmmercial activities cnducted ver Internet Psitive: knwing and repeated transmissin f cmputer files ver Internet; clearly ding business at the frum state n the Internet Middle: exchange infrmatin with the hst cmputer 9
10 Level f interactivity and cmmercial nature f the exchange f inf Negative: merely pst infrmatin which is available fr view b. Calder Effects Test Rule: [A] defendant s trtius acts can serve as a surce f persnal nly where the plaintiff makes prima facie shwing that the defendant s acts (1) were intentinal, (2) were uniquely r expressively aimed at the frum state, (3) caused harm, the brunt f which was suffered and which the defendant knew was likely t be suffered [in the frum state]. Distinguish: In Calder, it wasn t just the plaintiff s CA residence that mattered, but the phne calls t CA surces fr the stry and the substantial sales f the tablid in CA. In Fire, by cntrast, the nly link t Nevada was the D s knwledge that Nevada was ne f the states in which P resided nt enugh. Hyp: thrw baseball at smene utside the state. c. (Handut) D was nt subject t PJ at Neb because their internet-related business activities in the state were nt related t P s claim. Mrever, the advertisement at issue was directed at the entire wrld, rather than aimed specifically at Neb, and Lpez did nt knw that Abduch was a resident f Neb. d. (EE Nte): D wh cmmits an act utside the state that she knws will cause harmful effects within the state, she may be subject t minimum cntacts jurisdictin there fr claims arising ut f that act. General Jurisdictin 1. Precedents: a. Perkins v. Benguest: Sued a Philippine crpratin at OH, where the cmpany's affairs (GM, stckhlder) were verseen during Wrld War II --> General Jurisdictin b. Helicpters: helicpter wned by Clmbian crpratin crashed in Peru crpratin's helicpter purchases and purchase-linked activity in Texas were insufficient t subject it t Texas curt's general jurisdictin 2. Gdyear Tires v. Brwn a. the crpratin's affiliatins with the State in which suit is brught are s cnstant and pervasive "as t render it essentially at hme in the frum State." b. nly if they designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed the prduct --> general jurisdictin c. (Handut): Eurpean subsidiaries f Gdyear USA were nt subject t general jurisdictin because they were in n sense at hme in NC. Their attenuated cnnectins t the State, fall far shrt f the cntinuus and systematic general business cntacts necessary t empwer NC t entertain suit against them n claims unrelated t anything that cnnects them t the State. d. (EE Nte): The curt rejected the argument that cntinuus sales int the state suffice t supprt general jurisdictin Places that crpratin fairly regarded as hme; the curt identifies dmicile, place f incrpratin, and principal place f business as paradig[m] bases fr the exercise f general jurisdictin We dn t knw if there culd be third place subject t general jurisdictin. Nte: apprach t decide general jurisdictin is different frm the apprach f deciding crpratin s citizenship, which is nerve center. 3. Daimler AG v. Bauman: 10
11 a. (Handut) Nt subject t general jurisdictin because it was in n sense at hme in CA. The exercise f PJ ver Daimler in CA wuld als be unreasnable based n the risks t internatinal cmity that the 9 th Circuit s expansive view f general jurisdictin psed. b. We have declined t stretch general jurisdictin beynd limits traditinally recgnized General jurisdictin has cme t ccupy a less dminant place in the cntemprary scheme [, which are] the place f incrpratin and principle place f business. c. In sme sense "cntinuus and systematic" is nt enugh, it must be s "cntinuus and systematic" as t render it essentially. 4. Burnham v. Superir Curt a. Scalia (4): Pennyer was decided arund the adptin f 14 th Amendment articulated at Pennyer persnally served within the state (Handut) bright line rule: amng the mst firmly established principles f persnal jurisdictin in American traditin (and ne cmmnly accepted at the time the Furteenth Amendment was adpted) is that the curts f a state have jurisdictin ver nnresident wh are physically present in the state. b. Brennen (4): Independent inquiry int fairness; critical insight frm IS: all rules abut jurisdictin must be subject t cntemprary understanding Take advantage f CA law/privilege, like purpseful avail itself f the privilege in the frum state invking benefit respnd t lawsuit. Vluntarily and knwingly present at the State (Handut) Case by case Inquiry: 1. Due Prcess generally permits a state curt t exercise jurisdictin ver a D if he is served with prcess while vluntarily and knwingly present in the frum. 2. It is necessary t undertake an independent inquiry t the fairness f the prevailing in-state service rule. 3. The critical insight f Shaffer is that all rules f jurisdictin, even ancient nes, must satisfy cntemprary ntins f due prcess. 4. [3 judges] criticizes the subjectivity, and hence, inadequacy, f Justice Brennan s apprach. c. Stevens (1): (Handut) Traditin + Fairness + Cmmn Sense = Easy Case. d. Nte: this rule des nt apply t crpratin s PJ (lwer curt split n agency test) 5. BMS v. Superir Curt f Califrnia a. Minimum Cntact state cercive /svereignty (defeat efficiency) They are a cnsequence f territrial limitatin n the pwer f the respective States. The states retain many essential attributes f svereignty, including, in particular, the svereign pwer t try causes in their curts. The svereignty f each State implies a limitatin n the svereignty f all its sister State. The Due Prcess, acting as an instrument f interstate federalism, may smetimes act t divest the State f its pwer t render a valid judgment. b. (New Questin) Related t the claims: hw clsely the relatin shuld be? U.S. Supreme Curt: fairly related C.A. Supreme Curt: sliding scale the weaker the cntact, the tighter the relatin. Acknwledged ways: 1. Purpsefully avails itself f the privilege f cnducting at frum state. 2. Intentinally and knwingly targeted at the frum state. c. (Reasnable frm f ntice/service) d. Reasnableness: fair play and substantial justice Burden f Defendant: (the mst imprtant) Interest f Plaintiff Interest f Frum State 11
12 Federalism; internatinal cmity e. (Handut) BMS s activities in CA were nt sufficiently related t the claims: What is needed and what is missing her is a cnnectin between the frum and the specific claims at issue. Other way f establishing PJ 6. Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute (Cnsent-Efficiency) a. Benefits: Designate the place, prviding certainty, saving mney; Cnsumer als saved mney frm this; Nature: Passengers cmes frm all ver the wrld. b. Test: Cnsent-t-jurisdictin clause is subject t judicial scrutiny fr fundamental fairness. c. [Handut] Fundamental Fairness did nt preclude the enfrcement f a frumselectin clause cntained in tickets issued by a cruise line t its passengers when there was n bad faith, fraud, r verreaching (i.e., Flrida was a sensible place t cnduct the litigatin) and plaintiffs essentially cnceded that they had ntice f the prvisin. 7. Mullane v. Central Hanver Bank & Trust C. a. [Handut] (Landmark Principle): An elementary and fundamental requirement f due prcess in any prceeding which is t be accrded finality is ntice reasnably calculated, under all the circumstances, t apprise interested parties f the pendency f the actin and affrd them an pprtunity t present their bjectins. b. Pennyer: attach prperty + cnstructive ntice adequate but nt reliable c. Ratinale: CS is just supplementary. Attachment f prperty is the main way t deliver infrmatin. Yet the P neither abandn their prperty, nr their agent within the state culd deliver it. (Their agents are adversary.) Peple wh wns prperty will care abut the prperty if it is attached. --> reasns why this way is usually kay "A state may indulge the assumptin that ne wh has left tangible prperty in the state either has abandned it, in which case prceedings against it deprive him f nthing, r that he has left sme caretaker under a duty t let him knw that it is being jepardized. 8. Federal Civ Pr Rules: Rule 4 a. Tw Questins needs t be answered: Did P cmply with the rule? If nt, the D culd dismiss the case fr insufficiency f the prcess. Whether reasnable under the circumstance? (due prcess cnsideratin) b. Waiver f service is substitute fr persnal service --> inexperience, mst frequent way t d this; c. (e) ptins t serve individual within U.S. (1) fllw state law, r (2) (A) persnal service (like Pennyer); (B) leaving a cpy at its residence t sme respnsive adult; (c)delivering a cpy f t an agent authrized by law. d. (h) crpratin: (A) state law, fllwing (e)(1) (B) fficer, managing r general agent/r agent authrized by appintment r by law. (c) if it's utside the U.S., fllwing (f), except (f)(2)(c) (i) e. (1) Serving summns r wavier f service establishes persnal jurisdictin: (A) fllw the state rule (B) fr Third-Party practice and Required Jinder Parties within U.S. and nt mre than 100 miles frm where the summns issued. --> wrks fr defendants near NY, DC r DE, they usually are acrss a river frm these districts. 12
13 9. Self-Impsed Regulatins: nt tested at fall ) Lng-arm statute: Jurisdictin ver persns must be authrized by the state r federal gvernment in additinal t Cnstitutin Every state authrizes persnal jurisdictin if the D is persnally served within the State. (Pennyer rule) Many State authrized the persnal jurisdictin as much as the Cnstitutin allws. Minrity rule: lng-arm statue e.g. Fla. Engage in substantial and nt islated activity within this state, whether such activity is whlly interstate, intrastate, r therwise, is subject t jurisdictin Requires mre activities r cntacts t allw service f prcess than minimum cntact Test: 1) des the lng-arm statute in this state allw its curts t assert jurisdictin? 2) due prcess questin: is asserting jurisdictin n the facts f this case cnstitutinal? 2) Venue: Lcated litigatin nt just within state, but als which federal judicial district in a state. 2011, Cngress, Clarificatin Act; 28 USCS 1391 If all defendants are the residents f a same state, any district curt If there's nn-resident, the law suit filed at the place where it happened. (a substantial part f the events r missins giving rise t the claim ccurred; r a substantial part f prperty that is the subject f the actin is situated) If bth f them des nt wrk, pick any f them Certain rganizatin r freign individual (a defendant nt resident in U.S.) culd be sued anywhere Failure t cmply --> dismiss under 12(b)(3), lack f persnal jurisdictin/subject matter/inapprpriate venue. 3) Transfer: Frm ne district t anther within the same judicial system Fr the cnvenience f parties and witness, in the interest f justice E.g. Cruise Line Case: Federal WA --> Federal FL, 1404 Als exist in the State. 4) Frum nn cnveniens: incnvenient frum Cmmn law dctrine Dismiss fr frum nn cnveniens --> transfer t a different judicial system, Prduct by freign citizens based n accidents at Sctland, will be mved t Sctland -- >freign plaintiff, happened at freign cuntry Use Pennyer as the way f giving ntice, nt establishing persnal jurisdictin --> usually kay, but nt very reliable. 13
14 Chapter 2 Subjective-Matter Jurisdictin 1. Federal Jurisdictin: Federal Questins - cases that "arise under" federal law Art. III (judicial pwer, certain cases, nly SC and Cngress t lwer federal curts and their jurisdictin), 1331 (arise under federal law) The district curts shall have riginal jurisdictin f all civil actins arising under the Cnstitutin, laws, r treaties f the United States Diversity Jurisdictin, 1332 E.g. citizen f different states 2. Supplemental Jurisdictin 3. [Prcedural] Remval Federal Jurisdictin 1. Luisville & Nashville Railrad v. Mttley: what is arise under federal questin. a. What is arise under? Well-pleaded cmplaint "A suit arises under the Cnstitutin and laws f the United States nly when the plaintiff's statement f his wn cause f actin shws that it is based upn thse laws r that Cnstitutin." An essential element f a claim r defense rests n federal law. b. Prbable Test: The questins is, des a state-law claim 1) necessarily raise a federal issue, 2) actually disputed and substantial, 3) which a federal frum may entertain withut disturbing any cngressinally apprved balance f federal and state judicial respnsibilities. Nt tested: 1. Federal statute authrizing riginal jurisdictin is mre narrw/strict than Cnstitutin Art. III. a. Cases based n state law but invlving federal issues, ges t state curts, fr Cngress des nt want t swamp federal curts. 2. Article III authrized federal curt including SC n appeal t hear issues under federal law. If the state curt did nt interpret federal issue well, the federal curt culd fix them. 3. Cngress culd amend 1332, giving federal curts riginal jurisdictin ver wellpleaded cmplaint AND just invlving federal issues. Shuld they d that? a. Hw des a curt decide whether the issue is under federal law? just by reading the face f well-pleaded cmplaint. 4. If they amended it, then the rule will be hard t apply, since a curt cannt decide by many direct r indirect claims in the pleading c. [Handut] A suit arise under the Cnstitutin and laws f United States fr purpse f 28 U.S.C nly when the plaintiff s well-pleaded cmplaint is based upn federal law. d. [Handut] Here, there was n federal subject matter jurisdictin because issues f federal law wuld likely arise nly as an affirmative defense and in addressing plaintiff s reply t that defense, nt in plaintiff s riginal claim (which was fr breach f cntract under state law). 2. Redner v. Sanders: persnal citizenship a. Test fr citizenship: State f United States: Citizenship fr the purpse f diversity jurisdictin is based n dmicile, 1) physical presence AND 2) an intent t remain. Freign state/natin: A resident is NOT citizen f a freign state. b. Applicatin CA+NY v. NY+NY, N, cmplete diversity (d)(2) Mexic v. Japan, N, n prvisin abut nly freign citizens. 14
15 CA v. JP+MX, Yes, (a)(2) CA+MX v. NY+MX, Yes, (a)(3)-partial aggregatin t diversity, it waives the cmplete jurisdictin Only under judicial interpretatin f federal statute, nt under Art. III CA+MX v. JP, N, n(a)(2) and n (a)(3), literally interpretatin f statute. CA v. federal CA ver divrce. NO, fr divrce is state law issue. 1992, family case falls ut the diversity scpe, even thugh P and D cme frm different states. c. [Handut]: The federal district curt dismissed a case against New Yrk defendants fr lack f subject matter jurisdictin because there was n diversity f citizenship. The plaintiff was neither a citizen f France (which wuld have authrized diversity jurisdictin under 1332(a)(2)) nr a citizen f Califrnia (which wuld have established diversity jurisdictin under 1332(a) (1)). 3. Hertz Crp v. Friend: crpratin s citizenship a. [Handut] The phrase principle place f business in 28 U.S.C refers t the place where a crpratin s high-level fficers direct, cntrl, and crdinate the crpratin s activities. never center test b. Nte: efficiency Old test: where the crpratin des a lt f business --> SC reject this apprach shuldn t be mre cmplex than half f grss incme. It's the price we have t pay t avid verly cmplex jurisdictinal administratin while prducing the benefits that accmpany a mre unifrm legal system. Supplemental Jurisdictin 1. Histry: a. Prmte efficiency: b. United Mine Wrker v. Gibbs: It exists whenever there is a claim within the cnstitutin jurisdictin and utside the cnstitutinally enumerated jurisdictin f the federal curts. c. U.S.C. 1367, Supplement Jurisdictin (a), "are s related t claims", whether it's under cmmn peratin facts cmmn nucleus f perative facts "can" questin (b), cannt vilate cmplete diversity jurisdictin: if the riginal suit was established by diversity, if a jinder claim will break it. NO jurisdictin (c), exceptin, "shuld" questin: 1) a nvel r cmplex issue f State law; 2) state law predminates ver the claims f federal law claim; 3) dismiss the federal law claim, nly left state law claim; 4) exceptinal circumstance (ther cmpelling reasns) d. Quality rather than quantity requirement fr adding state law questins. 2. In re Ameriquest Mrtgage C. Mrtgage Lending Practices Litigatin a. Class Nte: Whether the state claims can be reslved r dismissed withut affecting the federal claims They cmbine t tell the same stry, because he did nt knw her right, did nt cancel, mrtgage verstated, she cannt affrd. b. [Handut] The district curt denied defendant s mtin t dismiss plaintiff s state law claim fr lack f supplemental jurisdictin because the state and federal claims were cnnected by cmmn and perative facts (they were, in fact, inextricably intertwined), and there was n cmpelling reasn fr the curt t decline t exercise supplemental jurisdictin. 3. Szedrey-Rams v. First Bancrp a. [Handut] The district curt granted Defendant s mtin t dismiss plaintiff s state law claims fr lack f supplemental jurisdictin because the Puert Ric [state] law claims 15
16 predminated ver plaintiff s federal claim under Title VII and there were nvel and cmplex issues f Puert Ric law. b. Illustratin: Predminated state law claim: D fired P nt mainly fr sex r natinal rigins, but fr her whistle blwer. Nvel r cmplex claim f state law: cncerns attrney-client privilege, the P.R. law remains silent abut it This is an issue f Puert Ric law that has yet t be addressed by the Puert Ric curts and which is imbued with imprtant cnsideratin f public plicy. Remval 1. Remval is Defendant s mtin t remve the case frm state t federal curt; Remand is Plaintiff s mtin t remand the case frm federal t state curt as a reactin fr remval. 2. Fed. Civ. Pr. Rule: a. U.S.C. 1441: Remval (a) applies t all civil actins (b) limitatin fr diversity cases (may nt be remved) 1) Defendant cannt remve, if the suit is filed at a defendant's (r any f defendants') hme state 2) <-- ratinale behind federal trial is t avid discriminatin at state curt, but here D cannt have discriminatin in state curt. (c) (1) (b) + (2) meaning 1) If a case cntains federal and state law claims, D culd remve the whle case t federal curts. But the federal curt culd nly keep the federal issue and remand the state law issues. b. U.S.C. 1446: prcedure fr remval (b) (2) all defendants must jin in r cnsent; (c) requirement; based n diversity f citizenship. (1) A case may nt be remved if (3)'s situatin happened mre than ne year after cmmencement f the actin, unless the P acted in bad faith. c. U.S.C Remand (c) time limitatin: 1) If remand n basis f any defect besides (ther than) SJM, 30 days 2) If remand fr lack f SJM, n limitatin until the case enters a final judgement. (d) an rder t remand a case back t state curt --> Nt reviewable n appeal (Defendant cannt appeal fr a granted remand rder) unless there is civil right claim r regarding U.S. fficial. 3. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis: efficiency a. [Handut] A district curt s errr in failing t remand a case imprperly remved is nt fatal t the ensuring adjudicatin if federal jurisdictin requirements are met at the time judgement is entered. Once a diversity case has been tired in federal curt, with rules f decisin supplied by state law under the Erie dctrine, cnsideratins f finality, efficiency, and ecnmy becme verwhelming. b. Illustratin: Under Erie, if the case were decided at state curt, KY state law; if at state curt, still KY state law same substantive law. Cngress s main theme; expeditius superintendence. 16
17 Chapter 3 Erie Dctrine 1. Test if there is cnflictin a. Questin 1: Is it a substantive law r prcedure law questin? Apparent substantive law: regarding elements f the claim state law Prbable prcedure questin r grey area? (Erie Prblem) Questin 2 b. Questin 2: Des a federal rule f civil prcedure / a federal statute gvern the situatin NOT a federal practice? Yes Questin 3 1) Questin 3: 1) Is it permissible under Rule Enabling Act: they cannt abridge, enlarge r mdify any substantive right + 2) Is the federal r statute cnstitutinally permissible? Yes. Federal law N. state law N Questin 3.1 r 3.2 1) Questin 3.1, Byrd Test: federal practice v. likelihd f different result in state curt Balancing Test: State law r federal law 2) Questin 3.2, Hanna: Wuld disregarding state law prmte frum-shpping r inequitable administratin f the laws? Yes, State law N, federal law 2. Erie Railrad v. Tmpkins a. Whether state substantive psitive law include state cmmn law? It used t be just be rules and enactments prmulgated by the legislative authrity theref. Yes: federal gvernment f limited and numerated pwer nly d what Cngress authrize them t d nt general cmmn law in Cnstitutin uncnstitutinal t exercise federal cmmn law. b. [Handut] The Cnstitutin requires federal curt t apply state cmmn law in diversity cases. It was already clear that state psitive law applied in diversity case and as Justice Reed s cncurring pinin recgnized, n ne dubts federal pwer ver prcedure. 3. Guaranty Trust C. v. Yrk a. Questins: (state) statute f limitatin v. (federal) equitable tlerance This is prcedural questin (thugh n ne dubts federal pwer ver prcedure) Plicy cncerns b. [Handut]Outcme Determinative Test Federal curt sitting in diversity shuld apply a state law that cnflicts with federal practice when disregarding the state law wuld significantly affect the utcme f the litigatin. c. [Handut] The lwer federal curts therefre erred by refusing t apply the state statute f limitatin based n a cntrary federal practice. 4. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. C-Op., Inc. a. Questin: (state cmmn law) bench trial v. (federal) jury trial It s arguably prcedural questin Cnstitutin-inspired federal practice f jury trial > state cmmn law Thugh the result is mre likely t be different. 17
18 b. [Handut] The federal curt was nt required t fllw a state supreme curt decisin hlding that the trial curt, rather than a jury, shuld determine whether the plaintiff was a statutry emplyee wh was cvered by the state wrkers cmpensatin statute. c. [Handut] The requirement appeared t be merely a frm and mde f enfrcing the immunity, and nt a rule intended t be bund up with the definitin f the rights and bligatins f the practice (prcedural questin), and the imprtance f the federal practice utweighed the likelihd f a different result in state curt. 5. Hanna v. Plumer a. [Handut] Service f prcess in a diversity case in federal curt is gverned by Rule 4 f the Federal Rules f Civil Prcedure b. Framewrk fr Analysis fllwing Byrd and Hanna 1. Substantive rules f state law apply under Erie. If, hwever, state-law rule r practice is ratinally capable r classificatin as either substantive r prcedural, then: 2. Des FRCP r federal statute gvern the situatin and cnflict with state law? a. If s, is FRCP permissible under the Rules Enabling Act (i.e., rules f practice and prcedure )? b. If s, is FRCP r statute cnstitutinal? c. If s, federal rule applies under Hanna 3. If answer t (2) is n, curt shuld a. Balance t the imprtance f a cnflicting federal practice against the likelihd f a different utcme in state curt under Byrd; and/r b. Examine, under Hanna, whether disregarding state law wuld: i. Encurage unseemly frum-shpping, r ii. Lead t inequitable administratin f the laws c. If s, curt shuld apply state-law rule; If nt, curt shuld apply federal practice. 18
19 Chapter 4 Litigatin I. Incentive t litigatin: Damage and TRO 1. Backgrund: a. Cmpensatry (substitute) damage: P bears the burden f prf b. Punitive damage: punishment r determent functin after cmpensatry damage --> cannt be grssly accessible r will be uncnstitutinal, usually nine (9) times f cmpensatry damage: (statutry damage: minimum damage awards decreed by legislatin, used when cmpensatry damage is hard t prve) (liquidated damage: An amunt cntractually stipulated as a reasnable estimatin f actual damages t be recvered by ne party if the ther party breaches.) c. Specific relief: perfrmance f cntract, injunctin fr ding r refraining ding smething The mst cmmn cmmanding is injunctins; thers like replevin. In equitable relief, the curt will lk at the adequacy f the relief. d. Declaratry judgement: prtective nature, like the cpyrights lawsuit Usually used in insurance and patent litigatin, but als in ther claims except tax disputes Federal Declaratry Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C Seeking frm a curt a declaratin f their rights withut seeking r being in a psitin t seek any cercive such as damages r an injunctin. 2. Prcedure fr declaratry judgment in the federal curts is gverned by Rule 57. But because the cases r cntrversies d nt really happen, s it might be a hypthetical case, nt a cncrete factual cntrversy (federal curt has limited jurisdictin ver them) 2. Trupe v. C&S Whlesale Grcers, Inc. a. [Handut] The federal district curt denied plaintiff s mtin t remand because the defendant has carried its burden f prving that, if plaintiff prevails, her damage will mre likely than nt exceed the minimum jurisdictinal amunt (i.e., > 75,000). b. Rule fr assessing damage: If it's apparent, then just remve; lng-term medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, lss f enjyment f life, lss f wages and earning capacity and permanent disability and disfigurement r ther serius injuries if nt apparent, require the party wh brings this mtin t prvide mre relevant evidence Defendant s Burden 1441 (c) (2) in diversity case D s burden t prve c. Reasning: Lng-term medical expenses (pain cntinuing mre than a year), lss f wages and earning capacity (huse cleaning service, reducing the number f huses that she culd clean due t her injury) 3. Fed. Civ. Pr. Rule. 65 a. R. 65 (B) TRO: Temprary Restraining Orders TRO can be issued withut nticing the ther party; The reasn why it shuld be rdered withut ntices must be stated by curt and the btaining party, therwise it will vilate the due prcess Expiratin: nt exceed 14 days; the curt culd extend anther 14 days; r/and if the adversary agrees, it culd extend mre. "14 days + 14days + what the adversary agrees" b. R. 65 (A) PI: Preliminary Injunctin A PI cannt be issued withut hearing If it fails, the adversary culd appeal it immediately, as an exceptin f "final judgement rule", which usually requires the adversary party waits the final judgement f the case, and then appeal. 4. Winter v. Natural Resurce Defense Cuncil, Inc. a. [Handut] A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctin must establish: that he is likely t succeed n the merits; that he is likely t suffer irreparable harm in the absence f preliminary relief that the balance f equities tips in his favr; that an injunctin is in the public interest. 19
20 b. [Handut] Sliding Scale fr the first and secnd factrs: In Dicta The Curt suggests, in dicta, that the Ninth Circuit s standard, which nly requires a pssibility f irreparable harm in sme circumstances, is t lenient, and that plaintiff must demnstrate that irreparable harm is likely in the absence f a preliminary injunctin. c. [Handut] Hlding: [E]ven if plaintiff have sme shwn irreparable injury frm the Navy s training exercises, any such injury is utweighed by the public interest and the Navy s interest in effective, realistic training f its sailrs. A prper cnsideratin f these factrs alne required denial f the requested injunctive relief. d. Reasning: 1) + 2) factrs: reject balancing test: fr 9 th Circuit, if the likelihd f the merits is very high, then just a pssibility f irreparable harm suffices. Balancing Equities: interest f natinal securities v. prtect marine mammals and envirnment. 1. Navy: depends n prfessinal s judgement; used fr 40 years; the nly reliable technlgy fr that purpse; ideal lcatin fr exercise 2. Animal: Curt nly lks at the interest f P (prtectin rganizatin), nt animals themselves. Public Plicy: Curt did nt lk at them, fr bth parties represent Public Interest; if there was any, they did it at 3). II. Pleading: Sufficiency; Ethical Limitatin; Cmplaints Legal & Factual Sufficiency 1. Rule 8: A pleading which sets frth a claim fr relief shall cntain: a. A shrt and plain statement f grunds upn which the curt s jurisdictin depends b. A shrt and plain statement f claims shwing that the pleader is entitled t relief; c. A demand fr jurisdictin fr the relief the pleader seeks. 2. Haddle v. Garrisn: frm district curt t Supreme Curt a. [Handut] The district curt errneusly dismissed plaintiff s cmplaint fr failure t state a claim upn which relief can be granted, because interference with at-will emplyment may give rise t a claim fr damages under Civil Rights Acts f b. Reasning: Rule 12 (b): fur defenses must be raised in pre-answer stage, r regarded as waive. Lack f persnal jurisdictin, imprper venue, insufficient prcess; insufficient service f prcess. Emplyment at will is nt prperty fr purpses f the Due Prcess Clause, des nt mean that lss f at-will emplyment may nt injur[e] [petitiner] in his persn r prperty fr purpses under 1985(2) c. The plaintiff culd petitin fr rehearing En Banc: re hearing the previus case If the majrity f the circuit agrees t re hear the case, then they culd re hear the case withut binding cases. 3. Bell Atlantic Crp. v. Twmbly t expensive a. Backgrund: Cney v. Gibsn, a cmplaint shuld nt be dismissed frm failure t state a claim unless it appeared beynd dubt that the plaintiff can prve n set f facts in supprt f his claim which wuld entitle him t relief. b. [Handut] Plaintiff cmplaint did nt state a claim fr relief under 1 f the Sherman Act because stating such a claim requires a cmplaint with enugh factual matter (taken as true) t suggest that an agreement was made. (i.e., plausible factual allegatins are required). c. Nte: requiring enugh factual matter taken as true that the claim was made --> plausible factual allegatin f a cnspiracy --> plausibility pleading "gate keep functin f pleading" 20
21 Eliminate really weak cases at the pleading stage in rder t avid causing(expense) at the discvery stage. Be cautius t eliminate the case + the cst is expensive 4. Ashcrft v. Iqbal t burdensme a. [Handut] T survive a mtin t dismiss, a cmplaint must cntain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, t state a claim fr relief that is plausible n its face. b. [Handut] Apparent Analytical Framewrk Disregard mere legal cnclusin (cntra Cnley v. Gibsn) ( We begin ur analysis by identifying the allegatins in the cmplaint that are nt entitled t the assumptin f truth. ) Assess whether remaining ( well-pleaded ) factual allegatin plausibly give rise t an entitlement t relief ( We next cnsider the factual allegatins in respndent s cmplaint t determine if they plausible suggest an entitlement t relief. ): 1. Is it mre likely than nt that defendant is liable based n the well-pleaded facts? 2. Is there a (significantly?) mre plausible, alternative explanatin? c. Nte: Rule A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual cntent that allws the curt t draw the reasnable inference that the defendant is liable fr the miscnduct alleged --> mre than a sheer pssibility Interpret Twmbly: 1. Threadbare recitals f the elements f a cause f actin des nt suffice. It has t be mre than cnclusin. 2. a cmplaint that states a plausible claim fr relief survives a mtin t dismiss <-- by curts' judicial experience and cmmn sense. Tw Steps: 1. Cmplaints that are n mre than cnclusins, are nt entitled t the assumptin f truth. 2. If there are well-pleaded factual allegatins, then decide whether they plausibly give rise t an entitlement t relief. a. Is it mre likely than nt that defendant is liable based n wellpleaded fact? r b. Is there a mre plausible lawful explanatin? d. Critics: Credibility determinatin: based n judge s judicial experience and cmmn sense. Impracticability: hard fr judge t decide 1. Rule maker s sample: "n (date), at (place), the defendant negligently drve a mtr vehicle against the plaintiff." cannt satisfy Iqbal 2. Pssibilities: a. Only the wrd "negligently" is cnclusin, thers are facts b. Under the judge's discretin, it culd be said that there is mre likely than nt that this cllisin is the reasn that P gt injured (Res Ipsa Lquitur?) c. Or just let the P t amend the pleading. Have nt been adpted by any federal statute r practice. 5. Stradfrd v. Zurich Insurance C. pleading special matters a. [Handut] Defendant s cunterclaim failed t plead the circumstances cnstituting fraud with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b) because it did nt specifically identify plaintiff s alleged lies, but the district curt granted leave t amend the pleading and cncluded that defendants subsequently satisfied the requirement f the rule. b. Rule 9: 21
PENNSYLVANIA CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSOR KEVIN P. OATES DREXEL UNIVERSITY THOMAS R. KLINE SCHOOL OF LAW
PENNSYLVANIA CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSOR KEVIN P. OATES DREXEL UNIVERSITY THOMAS R. KLINE SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR JUDGMENTS Three Main Tpics in Cnflict f Laws: Full faith and
More informationCIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
Civ Pr, Outline, Prfessr Glen Staszewski, Fall 2012 CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE CIVIL PROCEDURE- Curse abut where lawsuits can be brught (persnal AND subject matter jurisdictin must be satisfied) and hw litigatin
More informationActivities: Teacher lecture (background information and lecture outline provided); class participation activity.
Curts in the Cmmunity Clrad Judicial Branch Office f the State Curt Administratr Lessn: Hw the Appellate Prcess Wrks Objective: Understand what happens t a case when it leaves the trial curts. (Clrad Mdel
More informationLAW SCHOOL ESSENTIALS FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR JOHN C. JEFFRIES, JR. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW SCHOOL ESSENTIALS FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR JOHN C. JEFFRIES, JR. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW A. Success n an Exam INTRODUCTION TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE 1. Learn the Subject
More informationIf at all possible, it is strongly recommended that you get advice from a lawyer to help you with this application.
BACKGROUNDER What are my ptins frm here? If yu have been denied Legal Aid and cannt affrd t pay fr a lawyer, there is anther ptin. Yu can apply t the Nva Sctia Prvincial Curt t ask fr a lawyer wh will
More informationOpinions on Choice of Law, Forum Selection, Arbitration, and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments or Arbitral Awards in Cross-Border Transactions
Opinins n Chice f Law, Frum Selectin, Arbitratin, and Enfrcement f Freign Judgments r Arbitral Awards in Crss-Brder Transactins With increasing frequency U.S. lawyers are delivering clsing pinins t nn-u.s.
More informationGuardianship & Conservatorship In Virginia
Guardianship & Cnservatrship In Virginia This bklet is prduced by the Virginia Guardianship Assciatin in cperatin with the Virginia Center n Aging the Virginia Calitin fr the Preventin f Elder Abuse &
More informationPENNSYLVANIA TORTS DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR MICHAEL P. MORELAND VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
PENNSYLVANIA TORTS DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR MICHAEL P. MORELAND VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: INTENTIONAL TORTS & NEGLIGENCE A. Intentinal Trts 1. Battery Exam Tip 1: Remember that Pennsylvania
More informationCALIFORNIA REMEDIES ESSAY WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW
CALIFORNIA REMEDIES ESSAY WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: APPROACH; ISSUES TESTED A. Apprach t Essays 1) Determine and analyze the cause(s) f actin in the questin
More informationWITH RECENT CHANGES ISSUED BY THE CFPB, FINAL REMITTANCE TRANSFER REGULATIONS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 7, 2013
Financial Institutins Client Service Grup T: Our Clients and Friends September 19, 2012 WITH RECENT CHANGES ISSUED BY THE CFPB, FINAL REMITTANCE TRANSFER REGULATIONS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 7, 2013
More informationFEDERAL JURISDICTION & PROCEDURE PROFESSOR JOHN C. JEFFRIES, JR. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW
FEDERAL JURISDICTION & PROCEDURE PROFESSOR JOHN C. JEFFRIES, JR. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: FEDERAL QUESTION AND DIVERSITY A. Intrductin t Federal Subject
More informationThe Judicial Branch. I. The Structure of the Judicial Branch: *U.S. Supreme Court
I. The Structure f the Judicial Branch: The judicial pwer f the United States, shall be vested in ne Supreme Curt, and in such inferir curts as the Cngress may frm time t time rdain and establish. The
More informationDATA REQUEST GUIDELINES
DATA REQUEST GUIDELINES This dcument describes prcedures law enfrcement authrities and individuals invlved in civil litigatin shuld fllw t request data frm LinkedIn and its affiliated service prviders.
More informationCARL Backgrounder on the New Citizenship Act (formerly Bill C-24) INTRODUCTION
Primary Authr: Aris Daghighian CARL Backgrunder n the New Citizenship Act (frmerly Bill C-24) INTRODUCTION The Stephen Harper Cnservative gvernment s Bill C-24 amending the Citizenship Act is nw law, having
More informationCOURT FACILITY EQUAL ACCESS POLICY
COURT FACILITY EQUAL ACCESS POLICY Gvernment Cde 7284.8(a ALEX CALVO COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLERK OF THE COURT Superir Curt f Califrnia Cunty f Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, Califrnia 95060
More informationAdjourning Licensing Hearings
Adjurning Licensing Hearings Sarah Clver, Barrister and Head f Licensing at N 5 Chambers gives her pinin n a cmmn practical prblem cncerned with adjurning licensing hearings.. An issue which appears t
More informationChapter 16 Outline. Judicial review is the check that federal courts have against the other two branches of government
Chapter 16 Outline Intr: Judicial review is the check that federal curts have against the ther tw branches f gvernment At ne time, there was much cntrversy n whether it was right t give the judiciary the
More informationDispute Resolution Around the World. Venezuela
Dispute Reslutin Arund the Wrld Venezuela Dispute Reslutin Arund the Wrld Venezuela 2009 Dispute Reslutin Arund the Wrld Venezuela Table f Cntents 1. Natinal Cnstitutin... 1 2. Internatinal Treaties:
More informationINSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING A COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE WITHOUT MINOR CHILDREN
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING A COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE WITHOUT MINOR CHILDREN GENERAL COMMENTS This is the packet fr peple wh want t file their wn divrce in Cbb Cunty, and wh d nt have any minr children tgether
More informationINSTRUCTIONS FOR VACATING MISDEMEANOR AND GROSS MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR VACATING MISDEMEANOR AND GROSS MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS Washingtn law permits the vacatin f sme misdemeanr r grss misdemeanr cnvictins. Vacatin f a cnvictin releases yu frm all penalties
More informationSteps to Organize a CNU Chapter Congress for the New Urbanism
Steps t Organize a CNU Chapter Cngress fr the New Urbanism 140 S. Dearbrn St., Ste. 404 Chicag, IL 60603 Phne: 312.551.7300 Fax: 312.346.3323 Email: chapters@cnu.rg Intrductin The Cngress fr the New Urbanism
More informationCALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND CHOICE OF LAW A. Subject Matter Jurisdictin (SMJ) 1. In General Federal
More informationMulti-Agency Guidance (Non Police)
Multi-Agency Guidance (Nn Plice) Dmestic Vilence prtectin Ntices Dmestic Vilence Prtectin Orders Sectins 24-33 crime and security Act 2010 Cntents: Page Intrductin 2 Multi-Agency Engagement 2 Criteria
More informationMASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR ISAAC BORENSTEIN SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR ISAAC BORENSTEIN SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL CHAPTER 1: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND MASSACHUSETTS LAW A. General Principles In rder fr the Furth Amendment
More informationSocial Media and the First Amendment
Scial Media and the First Amendment Benjamin J. Yder Frst Brwn Tdd, LLC Margaret W. Cmey Lcke Lrd LLP Thurs. Feb. 1 & Fri. Feb. 2, 2018 Presentatin Overview Backgrund and develping case law Implementing
More informationBob Simpson: Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Inuvialuit Regional Corp.
Bb Simpsn: Directr f Intergvernmental Relatins, Inuvialuit Reginal Crp. The Inuvialuit Arbitratin Prcess It is very unique the nly example f binding arbitratin in a land claim agreement; ther land claims
More informationArticle I: Legislative Branch; Powers of Congress, Powers denied Congress, how Congress functions
The Cnstitutin 1 Preamble, 7 Articles, 27 Amendments Articles f the Cnstitutin Preamble: The purpse f the Cnstitutin Article I: Legislative Branch; Pwers f Cngress, Pwers denied Cngress, hw Cngress functins
More informationFLORIDA S DEPENDENCY BENCHBOOK BENCHCARD: PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION HEARING
FLORIDA S DEPENDENCY BENCHBOOK BENCHCARD: PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION HEARING Items in bld fnt are required by Flrida Statutes. If the child cmes int care with psychtrpic medicatin already prescribed. DCF
More informationCONTEMPT. This packet contains forms and information on: How to File a Petition for Citation of Contempt
CONTEMPT This packet cntains frms and infrmatin n: Hw t File a Petitin fr Citatin f Cntempt It is advisable t have an attrney when filing legal papers t be sure that yur rights are prtected and that all
More informationMICHIGAN CONTRACTS & SALES DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR ANNE LAWTON MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
MICHIGAN CONTRACTS & SALES DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR ANNE LAWTON MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW CHAPTER 1: CONTRACT FORMATION AND MODIFICATION A. OFFER General rule: Time perid fr a cntract is a
More informationRole Play Magistrate Court Hearings Teacher information
Rle Play Magistrate Curt Hearings Teacher infrmatin These ntes are prvided s that teachers can guide students thrugh preparatry activities befre presenting a rle play at the Law Curts Cnnecting t the curriculum
More informationSUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 551. Definitins. Fr the purpse f this subchapter - (1) ''agency'' means each authrity f the Gvernment f the United States, whether r nt it is within r subject t
More informationRefugee Council response to the 21 st Century Welfare consultation
Refugee Cuncil respnse t the 21 st Century Welfare cnsultatin Octber 2010 Abut the Refugee Cuncil The Refugee Cuncil is a human rights charity, independent f gvernment, which wrks t ensure that refugees
More informationCJS 220. The Court System. Version 2 08/06/07 CJS 220
CJS 220 The Curt System Versin 2 08/06/07 CJS 220 CJS 220 The Curt System Prgram Cuncil The Academic Prgram Cuncils fr each cllege versee the design and develpment f all University f Phenix curricula.
More information45-47 Part 1: General & Specified Prohibited Conduct Lecture 11: Consumer Protection Law
Sectin Page Lecture 1: The Australian Legal System 1-4 Lecture 2: Intrductin t Cntracts 5-9 Lecture 3: Cnsideratin 10-14 Lecture 4: Capacity, Legality & Frm 15-20 Lecture 5: Term in a Cntract 21-28 Lecture
More informationWest Tankers applies, so the Commercial Court points to other options in Nori Holdings Ltd v Bank Otkritie [2018] EWHC 1343 (Comm)
Maritime Bulletin Issue 8 www.4pumpcurt.cm West Tankers applies, s the Cmmercial Curt pints t ther ptins in Nri Hldings Ltd v Bank Otkritie [2018] EWHC 1343 (Cmm) Clarity has been restred fllwing the High
More informationThe Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) Requirement (Recommendations 1 and 2)
The Genuine Temprary Entrant (GTE) Requirement (Recmmendatins 1 and 2) The fllwing infrmatin prvides further detail n the planned Knight Review changes t the student visa prgram. Frequently asked questins
More informationResult: SCOTUS reverses PD award. Reprehensibility (most important factor)
1 Civil Prcedure Outline Res judicata, claim preclusin: prhibits claim splitting because a claim is barred by res judicata if it arises ut f the same nucleus f perative facts as the prir claim. (see, e.g.,
More informationCONTRACT LAW IN GENERAL: R
CONTRACT LAW IN GENERAL: R 1. Cntract Defined A cntract is a prmise r a set f prmises fr the breach f which the law gives a remedy, r the perfrmance f which the law in sme way recgnizes as a duty. R 2.
More informationMeasuring Public Opinion
Measuring Public Opinin We all d n end f feeling and we mistake it fr thinking. And ut f it we get an aggregatin which we cnsider a bn. Its name is public pinin. It is held in reverence. It settles everything.
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE. Plaintiff, [Name], comes before this Court and shows this
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA Plaintiff V. Civil Actin File N. ------ Defendant COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE Plaintiff, [Name], cmes befre this Curt and shws this Curt as fllws: 1.
More informationMARYLAND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PROFESSOR RUSSELL MCCLAIN UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW
MARYLAND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PROFESSOR RUSSELL MCCLAIN UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW Exam Tip 1: The Maryland Bar Exam tests n the Maryland Lawyers Rules f Prfessinal Cnduct, nt the ABA Mdel Rules.
More informationLEGAL BRIEF SMALL CLAIMS COURT JANUARY 2016
LEGAL BRIEF SMALL CLAIMS COURT JANUARY 2016 PREPARED BY NELLIS LAW CENTER, 4428 England Ave (Bldg 18), Nellis AFB, Nevada 89191-6505 702-652-5407, Appt. Line 702-652-7531 SMALL CLAIMS COURT This handut
More informationFD/FOC4037 USE THIS MISCELLANEOUS MOTION PACKET FOR
FD/FOC4037 USE THIS MISCELLANEOUS MOTION PACKET FOR THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS THAT MUST BE HEARD BY THE JUDGE, NOT THE REFEREE. THESE INCLUDE: Mtins regarding all spusal supprt issues, pst judgment, in all
More informationThe AIA s Impact on Patent Litigation. Prepared by Christopher Dillon
The AIA s Impact n Patent Litigatin Prepared by Christpher Dilln May 10, 2012 AIA s Litigatin Prvisins Virtual patent number marking allwed N mre jinder f unrelated defendants Failure t btain advice f
More informationCIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR JONATHAN NASH EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
CIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR JONATHAN NASH EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: ORGANIZATION OF THE GEORGIA STATE COURTS A. State Curt System curts Intermediate appellate curt curt B. Trial Curts 1.
More informationAlternative Measures for Adult Offenders ALT 1. March 1, 2018 CHA 1 CHI 1 CRI 1 FIR 1 HAT 1 IPV 1 SEX 1
Plicy: Alternative Measures fr Adult Offenders Plicy Cde: Effective Date: Crss-references: ALT 1 March 1, 2018 CHA 1 CHI 1 CRI 1 FIR 1 HAT 1 IPV 1 SEX 1 Sectin 717(1) f the Criminal Cde prvides in part
More informationROSE-HULMAN COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS EQUITY
ROSE-HULMAN COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS EQUITY USE AND ADAPTATION OF THIS MODEL WITH CITATION TO THE NCHERM GROUP/ATIXA IS PERMITTED THROUGH A LICENSE TO ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
More informationILLINOIS CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSOR DAVID L. FRANKLIN DEPAUL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
ILLINOIS CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSOR DAVID L. FRANKLIN DEPAUL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW INTRODUCTION Three Cncepts: Dmicile, Chice f Law, and Recgnitin f Judgments Essay: Generally will be a Multistate
More informationDEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY I $5,461 - $7,410/Month
and a Drug-Free Wrkplace The Cunty f Mnterey Invites yur interest fr the psitin f DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY I $5,461 - $7,410/Mnth OPEN UNTIL FILLED PRIORITY SCREENING DATE: Friday, Octber 13, 2017 Exam
More informationATCE v. Piper B ATCE s website with further information can be found at:
ATCE v. Piper Parties: (1) Plaintiffs Americans fr Tribal Curt Equality (ATCE) is a nnprfit rganizatin ut f Prir Lake, Minnesta, whse self-prclaimed missin is t prmte eliminating prejudice and discriminatin
More informationCommon Evidentiary Predicates to Authenticate Evidence
Cmmn Evidentiary Predicates t Authenticate Evidence 1. Phtgraphs Rule 901. Identify and cnfirm that phtgraph is fair and accurate representatin f what is depicted. See Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212,
More informationINFORMATION ON THE SELECTION PROCESS OF JUDGES AT THE UNIFIED PATENT COURT
INFORMATION ON THE SELECTION PROCESS OF JUDGES AT THE UNIFIED PATENT COURT Please read carefully the infrmatin n the selectin prcess f Unified Patent Curt (UPC) judges, the eligibility criteria, as well
More informationSTALKING PROTECTION BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES
STALKING PROTECTION BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these ntes d These Explanatry Ntes relate t the Stalking Prtectin Bill as intrduced in the Huse f Cmmns n 19 July. These Explanatry Ntes have been prvided
More informationSubjective intent is too slippery:
Scalia - Cmmn-Law Curts in a Civil Law System Lecture 1: Scalia begins by examining what he calls the cmmn law attitude. Lawyers are trained up in the traditin f cmmn law, distinguishing between cases
More informationAGENCY PROFESSOR WILLIAM BIRDTHISTLE CHICAGO KENT COLLEGE OF LAW
AGENCY PROFESSOR WILLIAM BIRDTHISTLE CHICAGO KENT COLLEGE OF LAW CREATING THE AGENCY RELATIONSHIP Every agency relatinship must have a principal and an agent. Generally, an des things n behalf f the and
More information- Problems with e-filing, especially for people from lower-income backgrounds. - Receiving memos / communication from one side and not the other
State Curt Training Mediatin: Beynd the Basics Jhn Lande and Susan M. Yates Nvember 3, 2017 Linked frm Stne Sup: Takeaways Frm New Hampshire Mediatin Training Mediatins frm Hell - Prblems with e-filing,
More informationCountry Profile: Brazil
Intrductin This cuntry guideline prvides general infrmatin n the mst cmmn crprate immigratin prcesses fr Brazil. Please nte that immigratin prcesses in every cuntry are subject t frequent change, and als
More informationOrder on Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (RICHARD W. MCWHORTER)
Gergia State University Cllege f Law Reading Rm Gergia Business Curt Opinins 12-20-2007 Order n Mtins fr Partial Summary Judgment (RICHARD W. MCWHORTER Elizabeth E. Lng Superir Curt f Fultn Cunty Fllw
More informationCBA Response to Private Prosecuting Association Consultation entitled. Private Prosecutions Consultation. 6 th March 2019
CBA Respnse t Private Prsecuting Assciatin Cnsultatin entitled Private Prsecutins Cnsultatin 6 th March 2019 Intrductin 1. The CBA represents the views and interests f practising members f the criminal
More information1. Humanities-oriented academic essays are typically both analytical and argumentative.
Analysis & Argument 1. Humanities-riented academic essays are typically bth analytical and argumentative. As yu may recall, the pint f an academic paper is nt s much t tell me a bunch f static facts r
More informationPrinted copies are for reference only. Please refer to the electronic copy in Scouts.ca for the latest version.
Prcedure Title: Temprary Suspensin and Discipline Prcedure Number: 13020.1 Dcument Owner: Directr f Child and Yuth Safety Apprval Date: Nvember 13, 2013 Apprver: Natinal Leadership Team Related Plicy:
More informationIncorporating Unemployment Compensation Law Into Your Practice
Incrprating Unemplyment Cmpensatin Law Int Yur Practice February 22, 2017 Presented by: Crey J. Mwrey, Esquire Rieders, Travis Law Firm 161 West Third Street Williamsprt, PA 17701 www.riederstravis.cm
More informationMARYLAND TORTS DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR MICHAEL PAPPAS UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW
MARYLAND TORTS DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR MICHAEL PAPPAS UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: INTENTIONAL TORTS AND NEGLIGENCE A. Intentinal Trts Invlving Persnal Injury 1. Battery Intent In MD,
More informationSTALKING PROTECTION BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES
STALKING PROTECTION BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these ntes d These Explanatry Ntes relate t the Stalking Prtectin Bill as brught frm the Huse f Cmmns n 26 Nvember 2018 (HL Bill 145). These Explanatry Ntes
More informationIEEE Tellers Committee Operations Manual
IEEE Tellers Cmmittee Operatins Manual IEEE 445 Hes Lane Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA Apprved by the IEEE Bard f Directrs Updated in June 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RESPONSIBILITIES... 3 FUNCTIONS
More informationSupervised Legal Practice Guidelines (Legal Profession Act 2008)
Supervised Legal Practice Guidelines (Legal Prfessin Act 2008) It is a legislative requirement that fllwing admissin and the btaining f a practising certificate, a lcal legal practitiner can nly engage
More informationORGANIZING A LEGAL DISCUSSION (IRAC, CRAC, ETC.)
ORGANIZING A LEGAL DISCUSSION (IRAC, CRAC, ETC.) Intrductin The rganizatin f yur writing will determine whether r nt a reader will understand and be persuaded by yur argument. Brilliant rhetric will nly
More informationSUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT AND EXTRAORDINARY TREATMENT. Substituted Judgment--Overview
SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT AND EXTRAORDINARY TREATMENT Substituted Judgment--Overview An exceptin t the general apprach t judicially-rdered alternative decisin making cncerns medical prcedures and treatment
More informationMARYLAND CONTRACTS DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR BRENDAN HURSON UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CAREY SCHOOL OF LAW
MARYLAND CONTRACTS DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR BRENDAN HURSON UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CAREY SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: MARYLAND CONTRACTS DISTINCTIONS A. Frmatin f Cntracts 1. Mutual Assent Mutual assent: Offer
More informationREQUEST TO ARBITRATE
FORM 1 BUILDER ARBITRATION FORUM REQUEST TO ARBITRATE Nte: All parts f this frm including Schedule A must be cmpleted in rder t cmmence an arbitratin. Builder s Infrmatin Registratin Number: Cmpany Name:
More informationPART XIII PRIVATIVE CLAUSES
PART XIII PRIVATIVE CLAUSES I Intrductin A The Privative, Ouster, r Preclusin Clause Privative clauses are prvisins in a statute which preclude the pssibility f certain frms f administrative review. Typically,
More informationJoan DUBAERE Racine & Vergels
LUGANO CONVENTION - Curt Case, initiated n 21 December 2009 by Belgium against Switzerland Belgium vs. Switzerland cncerning the interpretatin and applicatin f the Lugan Cnventin n jurisdictin and the
More informationThe Changing Battlefields of Patent Litigation: TC Heartland, the PTAB, UK and Germany
OCTOBER 31, 2017 NOVEMBER 1, 2017 The Changing Battlefields f Patent Litigatin: TC Heartland, the PTAB, UK and Germany Deepak Gupta, Jim Day, David Knight, Ben Grzimek Farella Braun + Martel LLP and Fieldfisher
More informationChild migration (subclass 101, 102, 445 and 117)
Child migratin (subclass 101, 102, 445 and 117) Applicatin Dcument Checklist (Thailand and Las) Hw d I ldge my applicatin? All applicatins shuld be ldged in persn at an Australian Visa Applicatin Centre
More informationDeferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) Frequently Asked Questions December 4, 2014
Deferred Actin fr Parental Accuntability (DAPA) Frequently Asked Questins December 4, 2014 On Nvember 20, 2014, President Obama annunced executive actins t change immigratin plicy. One f these refrms,
More informationVideo Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrp Rad Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@al.cm Vide Curse Evaluatin Frm Attrney Name Atty ID number fr Pennsylvania: Name f Curse Yu Just
More informationItem No Halifax Regional Council August 14, 2012
Item N. 11.1.12 Halifax Reginal Cuncil August 14, 2012 TO: Mayr Kelly and Members f Halifax Reginal Cuncil SUBMITTED BY: Richard Butts, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: July 24, 2012 Original signed
More informationINTEGRITY COMMISSION BILL
The fllwing is the Barbads Labur Party s draft Integrity Cmmissin Bill. We invite yu, the members f the public, t cmment n this Bill as we intend after taking int accunt yur suggestins t have this enacted
More informationNational Criminal History Record Check (NCHRC) Application Consent to Obtain Personal Information - December 2011
Natinal Criminal Histry Recrd Check (NCHRC) Applicatin Cnsent t Obtain Persnal Infrmatin - December 2011 University/Agency Name: Curse r Psitin Title: Applicant details: (Applicant t print all details)
More informationMASSACHUSETTS WILLS PROFESSOR KENT SCHENKEL NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW
MASSACHUSETTS WILLS PROFESSOR KENT SCHENKEL NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION A. Intrductin When yu encunter a wills and estates questin n the bar exam, yu first
More informationOrder on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY)
Gergia State University Cllege f Law Reading Rm Gergia Business Curt Opinins 8-11-2010 Order n Plaintiffs' Mtin fr Partial Summary Judgment (ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY) Alice D. Bnner Superir
More informationOglala Sioux v. Fleming (On appeal to 8 th Cir.) A Case Summary
Oglala Siux v. Fleming (On appeal t 8 th Cir.) A Case Summary Parties: (1) Plaintiffs Oglala Siux Tribe and Rsebud Siux Tribe are Indian tribes fficially recgnized by the U.S. with reservatins lcated within
More informationOFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMISSION ON ETHICS PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AUGUST 3, 2017
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMISSION ON ETHICS PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AUGUST 3, 2017 THURSDAY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1:36 P.M. GOVERNMENTAL CENTER I. SWEARING IN NEW COMMISSIONER BY CHIEF
More informationNova Scotia Nominee Program NSNP Demand 200 Employer Information
Nva Sctia Nminee Prgram NSNP Demand 200 Emplyer Infrmatin _ This frm must be cmpleted and signed by the emplyer supprting an NSNP 100 applicatin. It is nt an emplyment cntract, but verifies that an ffer
More informationLLB#170#!Law$of$Contract$B"
LLB#170# Law$f$Cntract$B" Chapter"12" "identifying"the"express"terms" Inidentifyingthetermsfacntractthecurtstrytgiveeffectttheintentinsfthe parties. Hwever,thecurtsuseanbjectiveapprachinassessingtheparties
More informationGun Owners Action League. Massachusetts Candidate Questionnaire. Name: Election Date: Office Sought: District: Mailing Address: Party Affiliation:
Gun Owners Actin League Massachusetts Candidate Questinnaire Name: Electin Date: Office Sught: District: Mailing Address: Party Affiliatin: City: Zip: Campaign Phne: Campaign e-mail: Website: OCPF#: Campaign
More informationDual Court System Chapter 3
Dual Curt System Chapter 3 Dual Curt System In the United States the justice system has tw parts: 1. The Federal Curt System 2. The State Curt System Federal curts hear cases invlving federal matters
More informationThe America Invents Act- What You Need To Know
The America Invents Act- What Yu Need T Knw Reprinted fr ChIPs Summit Octber 10, 2012 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Mst significant change t the Patent Act since 1952 Changes t patent prsecutin prcedures
More informationTrial by Jury. Very different from the criminal law right to trial by jury!!
Trial by Jury Very different frm the criminal law right t trial by jury!! The Right t a trial by Jury The right t a jury applies in civil cases In suits at cmmn law, where the value in cntrversy shall
More informationpersonal data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person;
The Hague Academy Privacy Statement The Hague Academy f Internatinal Law prcesses persnal infrmatin and ther data in accrdance with applicable legislatin. With effect frm 25 May 2018, the General Data
More informationGEORGIA CONTRACTS DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR WILLIAM BIRDTHISTLE CHICAGO-KENT SCHOOL OF LAW
GEORGIA CONTRACTS DISTINCTIONS PROFESSOR WILLIAM BIRDTHISTLE CHICAGO-KENT SCHOOL OF LAW Nte 1: This lecture cvers nly the principal differences between the law and Gergia and the law in yur MBE Cntracts
More informationSURETYSHIP PROFESSOR KARA BRUCE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO COLLEGE OF LAW
SURETYSHIP PROFESSOR KARA BRUCE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO COLLEGE OF LAW CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO SURETYSHIP A. Suretyship Defined the prmise f a persn t pay the debts (r satisfy the ) f anther. B. Picturing
More informationAlex Castles, The Reception and Status of English law in Australia (1963) pg
4A The Path t Federatin, The Acquisitin f Legal Independence and Ppular Svereignty The Clnial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp) pg. 98-102 The Clnial Legislatures The bicameral legislatures (tw huses) were
More informationOXON CHURCH OF ENGLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL COMPLAINTS POLICY
OXON CHURCH OF ENGLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL COMPLAINTS POLICY HOW TO RAISE A CONCERN INFORMAL STAGE Class teachers are the usual first pint f cntact fr any cncerns. Mst cncerns are reslved infrmally thrugh cnversatins
More informationNYS Common Core ELA & Literacy Curriculum D R A F T Grade 12 Module 2 Unit 1 Lesson 2
12.2.1 Lessn 2 Intrductin In this lessn, students cntinue their analysis f Benazir Bhutt s speech, Ideas Live On, paying particular attentin t hw Bhutt develps a cmplex set f ideas in paragraphs 11 23
More informationSenate Bill 549 New Proffer Legislation
Senate Bill 549 New Prffer Legislatin Effect: Created Virginia Cde 15.2-2303.4, which limits the ability f lcal gvernments t request/accept prffers fr residential reznings/prffer amendments. 1 Applicability:
More informationAnswer: The issue in this question is whether Donny acted in reliance of Ann s offer to get the reward of $1000.
MLC101 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE Questin: It is the week befre ANZAC day and Ann s huse is rbbed. The thieves steal many items, including her Great grandfather s Wrld War 1 medals. Ann is distraught and puts
More informationFLORIDA ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHARLTON COPELAND UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW
FLORIDA ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHARLTON COPELAND UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: HOW TO WRITE A SUPERIOR FLORIDA ESSAY ANSWER A. GENERALLY There are a ttal f raw pints n the essay
More informationCh nook Aboriginal Management Certificate Program (AMP) 2015 Application Form
Ch nk Abriginal Management Certificate Prgram (AMP) 2015 Applicatin Frm Abriginal entrepreneurs are the key t building a healthy ecnmy bth n and ff reserve. The Abriginal Management Certificate Prgram
More information