Civil Procedure Outline~Fall '09

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 39
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.


Document Related
Document Description
Outline for Yeazell Civil Procedure. Heather Scribner.
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  I.AN OVERVIEW OF PROEDURE  No assignments. PART A: THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR U.S. LITIGATIONA.Approaching Civil ProcedureB.Constitutional Limits in Litigation 1.The Idea of Jurisdiction:the power of a court to render a judgment that other courtsand government agencies will recognize and enforce.2.Jurisdiction and the Constitutiona.Personal Jurisdiction:The power of a state court to render a judgment bindingsomeone who may never have set foot in that court. b.Subject Matter Jurisdiction:Power of a federal court to decide certain kinds of cases.c.Both personal and subject matter jurisdiction are necessary ingredients of anycourt’s power to render a binding decision in a case; that is, a court must have both subject matter and personal jurisdiction to render a valid judgment.d.Because the federal Constitution defines the lines of authority among thecompeting centers of power, courts look to the Constitution for their basicframework in deciding issues of judicial jurisdiction.e.3 parts of the Constitution bear on jurisdiction:i.Article III: Authorizes the establishment of the system of federal courts andin Section 2 sets the limits of federal judicial authority. Federal courts cannotexceed those jurisdictional boundaries, and Congress has the power in manyinstances to restrict the scope of federal judicial authority more narrowly thandoes the Constitution. The constraints imposed by Article III and thelegislation implementing it are the focus of subject matter jurisdiction.ii. Article IV, Section 1: Requires that “Full Faith and Credit…be given ineach State to judicial proceedings of every other State.” The Supreme Court hasinterpreted this clause to require that one state recognize and enforce judgments of another state. This clause has an important unstated condition – such judgmentsare entitled to full faith and credit only if the court rendering them had jurisdictionto do so.iii. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: Provides that no “State [shall] depriveany person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” This clause,the Due Process Clause, has proved one of the cornerstones of modernconstitutional and procedural theory. It derives its relation to jurisdiction from  Pennoyer v. Neff  .3.The Constitution and Choice of Law:Beyond personal and subject matter  jurisdiction, the Constitution shapes U.S. litigation in a third way: it sometimes dictateswhich set of laws a court must apply to a dispute. There are two key ways in which theConstitution dictates choice of law:a.Article VI provides that the Constitution and federal laws “shall be the supremeLaw of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thingin the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” This provision is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. The clause meansthat if Congress has validly enacted a statute dealing with a particular subject,   both federal and state courts are required to enforce the federal statute, regardlessof whether there is a contrary state statute or state common law rule. b.In the absence of a controlling federal statute, the federal court system is requiredto respect both the statutory and common law rules of the several states. Focus of this is the  Erie problem. II.PERSONAL JURISDICTION A. The Origins : Personal jurisdiction is a part of the U.S. constitutional law because of   Pennoyer  . Some definitions necessary for understanding:   a. writ of execution: Obtained by the sheriff from the court, when a victories plaintiff tries to collect judgment from the defendant who declines to pay, to seize any property belonging to the defendant, sell it, and give the resulting money to the plaintiff (upto the amount of the judgment). When that sell occurs, the sheriff gives to whoever buys thedefendant’s property a “sheriff’s deed” as evidence of title.b. “constructive” notice: Generally means “fictional” or “pretend.” Defendantsgenerally receive service of process, but if the defendant cannot be found, they are givenconstructive notice. Such notice can be accomplished by notice in a newspaper. Service, inthose conditions, is “constructive” because it is highly unlikely that the defendant willactually see it.c. “attachment”: Legal term for an officially sanctioned seizure of property: realestate, cars, and other property may be “attached.” Sometimes “attachment” means literalseizure; other times it means posting notices on property or on records of title so that prospective buyers know it cannot be sold.1.  Pennoyer v. Neff  :The great-grandparent of personal jurisdiction; made the questionof what we now call personal jurisdiction part of the Constitution.i.Facts:Mitchell was Neff’s attorney. Neff failed to pay him so Mitchellsued Neff in Oregon. At this time Neff was a non-resident so he wasn’t personally served and didn’t appear in court. Default judgment was enteredagainst him in not answering the complaint based upon constructive service tohim through publication. After the jgmt. was entered, Neff acquired 300 acresof land in the federal govt. To satisfy the jgmt., Mitchell had the sheriff seizeand sell the land. Pennoyer bought the land and received sheriff’s deed asevidence of title. Sheriff then returned proceeds of sale to Mitchell. Neff thensued in Oregon federal court to recover possession of the land. Neff pointed tosrcinal govt. deed as evidence of title. Court entered special jgmt. in favor of  Neff b/c prior jgmt. was invalid by defects in affidavit. Pennoyer sued out thiswrit of error.ii.Rule:A state has exclusive jurisdiction over people and property withinits borders. No state can exercise jurisdiction over people or property in other states. Judgments in personam without personal service of process shall not beupheld. Judgments in rem with only constructive service may be upheld. The“Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution only applies “when the courtrendering the judgment had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter”.iii.Holding:The original verdict of  Mitchell v. Neff  was invalid because thestate of Oregon did not have jurisdiction in personam over Neff. Therefore, the judgment shouldn’t have happened and the property should have never been  sold. Consequently, the court upheld the decision in Neff’s favor.iv.Reasoning:Constructive service is only substantial regarding in rem proceedings. When purpose of action is to determine in personam jurisdiction proceeding, constructive service upon a non-resident is ineffectual for any purpose because “if, w/o personal service, jgmts. in personam, obtained by ex parte against non-residents and absent parties, upon mere publication of process,which, in the great majority of cases, would never be seen by the partiesinterested, could be upheld and enforced, they would be the constant instrumentsof fraud and oppression.”2.  Pennoyer  introduces three basic concepts that are still important today:(1) Power – jurisdiction is power, and the power of states or other jurisdictions(federal courts) to make you do what you might otherwise not do; plus limits to that power imposed by the Constitution itself.(2) Consent – If you consent to jurisdiction, these black and white rules go out thewindow.(3) Notice – the “concealed” strand of   Pennoyer  . This will eventually become aconstitutional requirement. At the time of   Pennoyer  , we have sort of a duality of notice. For  in personam jurisdiction, you need personal service of process within the state. For  in rem or  quasi in rem actions, you can be served by publication.3.  Pennoyer  sets forth two jurisdictional categories:a.In personam jurisdiction:An in personam action is also known as personal jurisdiction. This has to do with jurisdiction over a person and their personal rights andliabilities. You would want to seek this first, then turn to in rem because the limit is theextent of the assets no matter where they are. b.In rem jurisdiction:An in rem is an action where the court is trying to decidethe rights in a piece of property itself  ( in the thing  ). Limited b/c the jurisdiction reaches onlyas far as the value of the value of the seized property located in the jurisdiction.Conceptually, think of  in rem as land. If you stop thinking about in rem as land, you’ll get introuble.i. Quasi in rem – determines the rights of a person in a thing  . Propertyisn’t part of the lawsuit; property is used only to obtain jurisdiction. Must attach property atthe outset of the lawsuit. Not the rights of  the world  in a thing, but the rights of specificindividuals in a thing. There are two kinds of  quasi in rem :(1) True quasi in rem : trying to secure a preexisting claim in the property, or extinguish someone else’s.(2) Substitute for personal jurisdiction where you apply adefendant’s property to satisfy a claim that is unrelated to property.4. Traditional Bases of Personal Jurisdiction: 1.personal service in state  Pennoyer  2.consent (implied, express, contract, statute, appearance/waiver)  Pennoyer  3.attachment of property from outset  Pennoyer  4.domicile (have a residence there and intent to return or remain) Milliken v. Meyer  4.The Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power  1.Redefining Constitutional Power:  Pennoyer  gets confusing if you try to apply itto corporations. Corporations don’t have physical reality, so they can’t be “  present  ” toreceive process in a fundamental sense. They also can’t (in the conventional sense)“ consent  ” to a court’s power.a.  International Shoe Co. v. Washington i.Facts: International Shoe is a Delaware company with its mainoffice in St. Louis, Missouri. They have some salesmen oncommission in the state of Washington but don’t have any officesthere. Washington is trying to get the company to ante up for itsunemployment fund. Washington served Shoe notice of assessment by personally delivering it to one of their salesmen in Washington as wellas sending registered mail to their home office in St. Louis.ii.Rule: A corporation that is protected by the laws of a stateshall besubject to personal jurisdiction in that state.iii.Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s rulingfor the state of Washington. Shoe’s activities resulted in them receivingthe benefits and protections of the state’s laws, which included theright to resort to the courts for the enforcement of its rights. Service of  process was valid since it was delivered within the state to anauthorized agent of the corporation, thus establishing “presence.” Thestate may maintain the suit in personam to collect the tax laid upon theexercise of the privilege of employing Shoe’s salesmen within thestate.iv.Reasoning: The court interprets the due process clause and theFourteenth Amendment to mean that if a company has “sufficientcontacts” in a state, they may be subject to being sued in that state. b. Traditional Bases of Personal Jurisdiction: 1.personal service in state  Pennoyer  2.consent (implied, express, contract, statute, appearance/waiver)  Pennoyer  3.attachment of property from outset  Pennoyer  4.domicile (have a residence there and intent to return or remain) Milliken v. Meyer  International Shoe added minimum contacts as a Modern Base of PersonalJurisdiction: 5.minimum contacts (minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenanceof the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”c.Two questions arise from minimum contacts:1.Is extent of contacts single/isolated/sporadic OR continuous/systematic?2.Does COA arise out of contacts OR unrelated to contacts?
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!