Civil Procedure: Cases and Problems

Babcock, Massaro
3rd Edition
ISBN: 0735556202

View Casebook Case Listing
View Casebook Summary Table

Page	Case Name	Citation	Court	Audio
29	Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.	339 U.S. 306	Supreme Court of the United States, 1950	Download
98	Pennoyer v. Neff	95 U.S. 714	Supreme Court of the United States, 1877	Download
104	International Shoe v. Washington	326 U.S. 310	Supreme Court of the United States, 1945	Download
115	World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson	444 U.S. 286	Supreme Court of the United States, 1980	Download
127	Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court	480 U.S. 102	Supreme Court of the United States, 1987	Download
140	Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz	471 U.S. 462	Supreme Court of the United States, 1985	Download
161	Burnham v. Superior Court	495 U.S. 604	Supreme Court of the United States, 1990	Download
153	Shaffer v. Heitner	433 U.S. 186	Supreme Court of the United States, 1977	Download
190	Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute	499 U.S. 585	Supreme Court of the United States, 1991	Download
227	Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley	211 U.S. 149	Supreme Court of the United States, 1908	Download
231	Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson	478 U.S. 804	Supreme Court of the United States, 1986	Download
282	Conley v. Gibson	355 U.S. 41	Supreme Court of the United States, 1957	Download
326	Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc.	139 F. Supp. 408	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvannia
331	Gomez v. Toledo	446 U.S. 635	Supreme Court of the United States, 1980
439	Hickman v. Taylor	329 U.S. 495	Supreme Court of the United States, 1947	Download
533	Evans v. Jeff D.	475 U.S. 717	Supreme Court of the United States, 1986	Download
790	Erie Railroad v. Tompkins	304 U.S. 64	Supreme Court of the United States, 1938	Download
804	Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative	356 U.S. 525	Supreme Court of the United States, 1958	Download
805	Hanna v. Plummer	380 U.S. 460	Supreme Court of the United States, 1965	Download
854	Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis	519 U.S. 61	Supreme Court of the United States, 1996	Download
870	Piper Aircraft v. Reyno	454 U.S. 235	Supreme Court of the United States, 1981	Download

Case Information	Fact Summary	Rule of Law
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Supreme Court of the United States, 1950 339 U.S. 306 Pg. 29	Trust fund proceeding is announced in local paper and is challenged because of sufficiency of notice.	Notice must be reasonable.
Pennoyer v. Neff Supreme Court of the United States, 1877 95 U.S. 714 Pg. 98	Mitchell sued Neff for attorneys fees. Neff was out of town. Mitchell acquired Neff's property through a Sheriff's deed and then sold the property to Pennoyer. Neff sued to get land back.	Judgments in personam without personal service of process shall not be upheld. Judgments in rem with only constructive service may be upheld.
International Shoe v. Washington Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 326 U.S. 310 Pg. 104	Appellant, a Delaware corp., has principle business in Missouri. It employs agents who live in the state of Washington, who solicit contracts but are not allowed to enter into them.	"Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend the 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson Supreme Court of the United States, 1980 444 U.S. 286 Pg. 115	Plaintiff buys a car from a dealership (defendant) in New York. In a fit of manifest destiny, plaintiff drives his family cross country, only to be rear-ended in Oklahoma. To add injury to insult, the car catches fire, severely burning plaintiff's wife and two children. Plaintiff sues dealership in Oklahoma state court.	In order for a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must exist "minimum contacts" between defendant, the forum, and the claim. Whereas a defendant's "purposeful availment" of a forum state's laws and privileges satisfies the minimum contacts test, "foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction."
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 480 U.S. 102 Pg. 127	Plaintiff is riding motorcycle when back tire blows out, causing severe injury and the death of plaintiff's wife. Plaintiff files suit in California state court against Taiwanese manufacturer of tire tube, who then files cross claim against the Japanese corporation (defendant) that manufacturers another component of the tire tube.	Defendant's "awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State," alone, is not sufficient to constitute a "substantial connection between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts." Additional conduct is necessary, such as: "(a) designing the product for the market in the forum State, (b) advertising in the forum State, (c) establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or (d) marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State."
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz Supreme Court of the United States, 1985 471 U.S. 462 Pg. 140	Defendant established a Burger King franchise and then failed to pay rent.	A defendant is subject to suit in a forum if the defendant purposefully avails himself of that forum.
Burnham v. Superior Court Supreme Court of the United States, 1990 495 U.S. 604 Pg. 161	The Burnhams were getting divorced. Mrs. Burnham moved from New Jersey to California. Mr. Burnham went to California on business and was served by Mrs. Burnham.	States have jurisdiction over nonresident visitors who are physically present in the state.
Shaffer v. Heitner Supreme Court of the United States, 1977 433 U.S. 186 Pg. 153	Plaintiff buys one share of Greyhound stock and then sues the board in Delaware for breach.	"The standard for determining whether an exercise of jurisdiction over the interests of persons is consistent with the Due Process Clause is the minimum contacts standard elucidated in International Shoe."
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute Supreme Court of the United States, 1991 499 U.S. 585 Pg. 190	The Shutes bought a cruise ticket. The contract - which was attached to the ticket - stated that the forum for litigation would be Florida. The Shutes sued in Washington district court.	The Court will enforce consent to a jurisdiction.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley Supreme Court of the United States, 1908 211 U.S. 149 Pg. 227	The plaintiffs agreed to release their claims for damages against the defendant railroad in return for lifetime passes on the railroad. 36 years later, the defendant refused to renew the passes and the plaintiffs brought suit.	A case raising a federal defense, but no federal claim, cannot be brought in federal district court and is not a sufficient foundation for federal jurisdiction. Arguments using a federal law in an "anticipated defense," are not grounds for federal jurisdiction because an official defense in a lawsuit in not known until the defendant files their answer.
Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Supreme Court of the United States, 1986 478 U.S. 804 Pg. 231	Plaintiffs brought a complaint against a manufacturer of the drug Bendectin on 6 counts of negligence. One of the counts was based on a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).	When a violation of a federal statute is an element of a state cause of action (and when there is no private federal right of action for the violation), there does not exist a claim "arising under" the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Conley v. Gibson Supreme Court of the United States, 1957 355 U.S. 41 Pg. 282	African American members of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks brought a claim against its local union of the Brotherhood (Local Union 28, their designated bargaining agent) for failure to represent them fairly and without discrimination.	A complaint only need contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FRCP 8(a)(2). Such a statement must simply "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." "A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove NO set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."
Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvannia 139 F. Supp. 408 Pg. 326
Gomez v. Toledo Supreme Court of the United States, 1980 446 U.S. 635 Pg. 331
Hickman v. Taylor Supreme Court of the United States, 1947 329 U.S. 495 Pg. 439	Defendant interviewed several witnesses on his own after the public hearing had alreadt been done. The Plaintiff then requested discovery of the information that D obtained from these private interviews in a separate interrogatory. The Defendant refused the request claiming privilege.	The work product of an attorney is not discoverable unless the complaining party can show necessity or justification: mental impression, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories are never discoverable. The duty to supplement answers to interrogatories is excused only if the information at issue has already been revealed through other discovery devices. (FRCP 26(b)(3))
Evans v. Jeff D. Supreme Court of the United States, 1986 475 U.S. 717 Pg. 533	Respondents are a class of children who suffer from emotional and mental handicaps, who have brought this action against Petitioner's, the Governor and other public officials of the State of Idaho responsible for the education and treatment of these children. Respondent's allege that both the educational and health care programs are deficient and therefore violate the United States Constitution, the Idaho Constitution, four federal statutes, and certain provisions of the Idaho Code. The issue here is whether the court should award attorneys fees.	"Congress enacted the fee-shifting provision as 'an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain' compliance with civil rights laws, . . . to further the same general purpose - promotion of respect for civil rights - that led it to provide damages and injunctive relief. . . . [I]t is undoubtedly true that Congress expected fee shifting to attract competent counsel to represent citizens deprived of their civil rights . . ."
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Supreme Court of the United States, 1938 304 U.S. 64 Pg. 790	Tompkins (plaintiff), strolling alongside the railroad in PENNSYLVANIA, has his arm severed by a passing train (Erie Railroad, defendant). Plaintiff files suit in federal district court in NEW YORK. Judge applies "general [tort] law," instead of Pennsylvania state tort law, in deciding the case. Erie appeals.	Federal courts must follow and apply state statutes and case law in deciding cases unless the case is governed by federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution. NOTE: Although federal courts must follow SUBSTANTIVE state law, the Erie decision implies that federal courts may still apply federal PROCEDURAL rules. [Caution: Later cases erode this distinction.]
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 356 U.S. 525 Pg. 804	Plaintiff, a statutory employee, was injured on a construction job for the defendant.	In determining whether to use state or federal procedue, the court will consider the following: (1) whether the state practice is an "integral part" of state law and "bound up with the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties"; (2) whether a competing federal policy outweighs the interest in the objective of consistent decisions in state and federal court or the state's interest in its own practice; and (3) whether the application of the federal practice is certain to produce a different result than the application of state practice.
Hanna v. Plummer Supreme Court of the United States, 1965 380 U.S. 460 Pg. 805	Plaintiff files suit in federal court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff serves the summons and complaint to defendant, but the method of service is inadequate per state procedural law. According to Rule 4 (federal), however, the service is adequate. District court applies state procedural law and grants defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals.	Federal courts shall employ the Federal Rules of Procedure, unless the rule in question is unconstitutional. "To hold that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure must cease to function whenever it alters the mode of enforcing state-created rights would be to disembowel either the Constitution's grant of power over federal procedure or Congress' attempt to exercise that power in the Enabling Act."
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis Supreme Court of the United States, 1996 519 U.S. 61 Pg. 854	Lewis (plaintiff, Kentucky citizenship) brings suit in STATE court against Caterpillar (defendant, Delaware citizenship) and Whayne Supply (Kentucky citizenship) for injuries suffered while operating a bulldozer. Case is removed to FEDERAL district court, even though there is not complete diversity of citizenship. Despite this mistake, the federal district court overrules Lewis's motion to remand back to state court. Before trial, however, Whayne is dismissed from the case (for reasons not worth getting into), leaving Lewis and Caterpillar as the sole remaining parties to the suit. Caterpillar wins at trial.	"A district court's error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time JUDGMENT is entered."
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno Supreme Court of the United States, 1981 454 U.S. 235 Pg. 870	A small plane crash in Scotland. Scottish relatives sued the American manufacturers. The defendant removed the case to Federal Court. Then under FRCP Section 1404 the case was transferred to a different judicial district.	A claim will be dismissed on a forum non conveniens motion if the "burden and oppressiveness" to the defendant is out of proportion to the convenience of the plaintiff.