Civil Procedure: A Contemporary Approach
- Spencer
- 2nd Edition
- ISBN: 978-0-314-18785-7
| Page | Case Name | Citation | Court | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court | 480 U.S. 102 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 |  Download |
| 467 | Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp. | 562 F.2d 537 | United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1977 | |
| 413 | Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly | 127 S. Ct. 1955 | United States Supreme Court, 2007 | Download |
| 80 | Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz | 471 U.S. 462 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1985 | Download |
| 143 | Burnham v. Superior Court | 495 U.S. 604 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1990 | Download |
| 365 | Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative | 356 U.S. 525 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 | Download |
| 155 | Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute | 499 U.S. 585 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1991 | Download |
| 749 | Celotex Corp. v. Catrett | 477 U.S. 317 (1986) | United States Supreme Court, 1986 | Download |
| 789 | Chauffers, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry | 494 U.S. 558 (1990) | United States Supreme Court, 1990 | Download |
| 292 | Dee-K Enterprises, Inc., v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. | 982 F. Supp. 1138 | United States District Court, Eeastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. 1997 | Download |
| 340 | Erie Railroad v. Tompkins | 304 U.S. 64 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1938 | Download |
| 352 | Guaranty Trust Co. v. York | 326 U.S. 99 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 | Download |
| 372 | Hanna v. Plummer | 380 U.S. 460 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1965 | Download |
| 51 | Hanson v. Denckla | 357 U.S. 235 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 | Download |
| 121 | Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall | 466 U.S. 408 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1983 | Download |
| 631 | Hickman v. Taylor | 329 U.S. 495 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1947 | Download |
| 37 | International Shoe v. Washington | 326 U.S. 310 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 | Download |
| 886 | Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel | 424 U.S. 737 (1976) | United States Supreme Court, 1976 | Download |
| 214 | Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley | 211 U.S. 149 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1908 | Download |
| 49 | McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. | 355 U.S. 220 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1957 | Download |
| 522 | Mosley v. General Motors Corp. | 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974) | United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1974 | Download |
| 166 | Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. | 339 U.S. 306 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1950 | Download |
| 533 | Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission | 578 F.2d 1341 (10th Cir. 1978) | United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1978 | Download |
| 936 | Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore | 439 U.S. 322 (1979) | United States Supreme Court, 1979 | Download |
| 23 | Pennoyer v. Neff | 95 U.S. 714 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1877 | Download |
| 118 | Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. | 342 U.S. 437 | United States Supreme Court, 1952 | Download |
| 319 | Piper Aircraft v. Reyno | 454 U.S. 235 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1981 | Download |
| 667 | Poole v. Textron, Inc. | 192 F.R.D. 494 | United States District Court for the District of Maryland | |
| 198 | Saadeh v. Farouki | 107 F.3d 52 | United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1997 | Download |
| 917 | Semtek Intl. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. | 531 U.S. 497 | Supreme Court of the United States, 2001 | Download |
| 130 | Shaffer v. Heitner | 433 U.S. 186 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1977 | Download |
| 539 | Temple v. Synthes Corp. | 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990) | United States Supreme Court, 1990 | Download |
| 60 | World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson | 444 U.S. 286 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1980 | Download |
| 459 | Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc. | 139 F. Supp. 408 | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvannia | |
| 615 | Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLP | 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2003 | Download |
| Case Information | Fact Summary | Rule of Law |
|---|---|---|
|
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 480 U.S. 102 Pg. 90 |
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." |
|
Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1977 562 F.2d 537 Pg. 467 |
||
|
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly United States Supreme Court, 2007 127 S. Ct. 1955 Pg. 413 |
Twombly sued Bell Atlantic for violating Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging that the companies created by the breakup of AT&T had agreed not to compete with each other and to prevent other companies from entering the local telephone service market. The Supreme Court considers what a plaintiff must plead in order to state a claim under Section One of the Sherman Act. | One bringing a claim for violation of the Sherman Act must allege "plausible grounds to infer an agreement" in violation of Section One. |
|
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz Supreme Court of the United States, 1985 471 U.S. 462 Pg. 80 |
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. 143 |
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. |
|
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 356 U.S. 525 Pg. 365 |
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. |
|
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute Supreme Court of the United States, 1991 499 U.S. 585 Pg. 155 |
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. |
|
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett United States Supreme Court, 1986 477 U.S. 317 (1986) Pg. 749 |
Respondent, Mrs. Catrett, brought this suit against Celotex, petitioner, alleging that her husband's death was a result of exposure to petitioner's product containing asbestos. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted manufacturer's motion for summary judgment and Mrs. Catrett appealed. | "Entry of summary judgment is mandated, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish that existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." |
|
Chauffers, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry United States Supreme Court, 1990 494 U.S. 558 (1990) Pg. 789 |
Workers sue their union after the union refused to prosecute a grievance. Workers claim that the union violated its duty of fair representation. Workers made a jury demand for all issues triable by a jury; the Union moved to strike the jury demand on the ground that no right to a jury trial exists in a duty of fair representation suit. | To determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial, the court must "examine both the nature of the issues involved and the remedy sought. 'First, we compare the statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity. Second, we examine the remedy sought and determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature.'" |
|
Dee-K Enterprises, Inc., v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. United States District Court, Eeastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. 1997 982 F. Supp. 1138 Pg. 292 |
American bungee companies sue foreign "rubber thread" companies for conspiracy and antitrust. | 28 U.S.C. sec. 1391 (d) 2013 aliens can be sued anywhere; sec 1391 (b) (3) 2013 one of the American distributors resided in Virginia. |
|
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Supreme Court of the United States, 1938 304 U.S. 64 Pg. 340 |
Tompkins (plaintiff), strolling alongside the railroad in PENNSYLVANIA, has his arm severed by a passing train (Erie Railroad, defendant). Plaintiff files suit in federal district court in NEW YORK. Judge applies "general [tort] law," instead of Pennsylvania state tort law, in deciding the case. Erie appeals. | Federal courts must follow and apply state statutes and case law in deciding cases unless the case is governed by federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution. NOTE: Although federal courts must follow SUBSTANTIVE state law, the Erie decision implies that federal courts may still apply federal PROCEDURAL rules. [Caution: Later cases erode this distinction.] |
|
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 326 U.S. 99 Pg. 352 |
Plaintiff brings action in equity against defendant in federal court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. The facts of the case deal with bonds and finance, but in the aftermath of Erie v. Tompkins, the dilemma is clear: Under the law of the forum state, the statute of limitations bars the suit. Under federal procedure, however, the statute of limitations would not bar the suit. | In both actions at law and in equity, if a procedural issue "substantially affects" the outcome of the litigation, a federal court must apply the procedural law of the forum state. [CAUTION: Hanna v. Plumer, which the Supreme Court decides after Guaranty Trust v. York, reinstates much of the federal courts' authority to apply federal procedural law, even if the procedural law affects the outcome.] |
|
Hanna v. Plummer Supreme Court of the United States, 1965 380 U.S. 460 Pg. 372 |
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." |
|
Hanson v. Denckla Supreme Court of the United States, 1958 357 U.S. 235 Pg. 51 |
The case arose over a dispute between three sisters, whose mother had died. The mother, Mrs. Donner, established a trust in Delaware and then subsequently moved to Florida, where she spent the remainder of her life. The principle issue was whether the Delaware or Florida courts had jurisdiction over the assets of the trust. The issue was hotly contested, because if Florida had jurisdiction, two daughters inherited the trust. If Delaware had jurisdiction, the daughters would have to share the trust equally. The Court held that Florida did not have jurisdiction. | To be considered a resident of a state, the individual must “purposefully avail" themselves of activities and benefits in the forum state. |
|
Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall Supreme Court of the United States, 1983 466 U.S. 408 Pg. 121 |
Helicopteros - a Columbian company that was providing transportation services in Peru - was sued when one of their helicopters crashed, killing four U.S. citizens. The victims' decedents sued Helicopteros, among others, for wrongful death in the state of Texas. | "Even when the cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the foreign corporation's avities in the forum State, due process is not offended by a State's subjecting the corporation to its in personam jurisdiction when there are sufficient contacts between the State and the foreign corporation." In this case, the suit was not related to Helicopteros' contacts in Texas, and the contacts were insufficient to establish the requirement of "sufficient contacts." The judgment was reversed. |
|
Hickman v. Taylor Supreme Court of the United States, 1947 329 U.S. 495 Pg. 631 |
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)) |
|
International Shoe v. Washington Supreme Court of the United States, 1945 326 U.S. 310 Pg. 37 |
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.'" |
|
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel United States Supreme Court, 1976 424 U.S. 737 (1976) Pg. 886 |
Respondents allege that Liberty Mutual's insurance benefits and maternity leave regulations discrimination against women. The Court here considers whether court orders become appealable as a final decision if only a final judgment is entered on the issue of liability. | 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, which concerns appeal from judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties where less than all of multiple claims have been finally decided, does not apply to single claim action. |
|
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley Supreme Court of the United States, 1908 211 U.S. 149 Pg. 214 |
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. |
|
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. Supreme Court of the United States, 1957 355 U.S. 220 Pg. 49 |
McGee, a California resident, bought life insurance from defendant, a Texas corporation, who had solicited defendant through the mail. Defendant refused to pay when McGee died. | Mail is sufficient to establish minimum contacts when the claim is related to the defendant's activity in the state. |
|
Mosley v. General Motors Corp. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1974 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974) Pg. 522 |
Mosley and nine others brought actions individually and as class representatives alleging that their guaranteed rights were denied by General Motors Corp. and the automobile worker's union through racial discrimination in employment practices. A United States District Court ordered the severing of the joint actions. | Permissive joinder of plaintiffs has two specific requirements: (1) the right to relief must be asserted by, or against, each plaintiff or defendant relating to or arising out of same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and (2) some question of law or fact common to all parties must arise in action. |
|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Supreme Court of the United States, 1950 339 U.S. 306 Pg. 166 |
Trust fund proceeding is announced in local paper and is challenged because of sufficiency of notice. | Notice must be reasonable. |
|
Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1978 578 F.2d 1341 (10th Cir. 1978) Pg. 533 |
The Natural Resources Defense Council and others seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency (NMEIA) from issuing licenses for the operation of uranium mills in New Mexico without first preparing environmental impact statements. | In determining whether intervention should be allowed under a court is not limited to consequences of strictly legal nature but may consider any significant legal effect in applicant's interest and is not restricted to rigid res judicata test. |
|
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore United States Supreme Court, 1979 439 U.S. 322 (1979) Pg. 936 |
Respondent, Shore, brought this stockholder's class action against petitioners, Parklane Hosiery Co., alleging that petitioners issued "a materially false and misleading proxy statement in connection with a merger." Before this action came to trial, the SEC filed suit against Parklane for the same, and a District Court found for the SEC. Respondent then moved for a partial summary judgment asserting that Parklane was collaterally estopped from litigating the issues that has been resolved against them in the action against the SEC. | The use of offensive use of collateral estoppel (i.e., allowing a plaintiff to rely on a previous judgment against a defendant without being bound by that judgment if the defendant wins) should not be precluded altogether, however, trial courts have broad discretion to determine when it should be applied. |
|
Pennoyer v. Neff Supreme Court of the United States, 1877 95 U.S. 714 Pg. 23 |
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. |
|
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. United States Supreme Court, 1952 342 U.S. 437 Pg. 118 |
Perkins, a nonresident of OH, sued the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, a Philippine corporation, in an Ohio state court for failure to issue stock certificates and dividends. The court considers whether "as a matter of federal due process, the business done in Ohio by the respondent mining company was sufficiently substantial and of such a nature as to permit Ohio to entertain a cause of action against a foreign corporation. . . " | Where a party makes "continuous and systematic" contacts with a state, it is "fair and reasonable" to subject that party to personal jurisdiction regardless of whether the suit arises out of those contacts. |
|
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno Supreme Court of the United States, 1981 454 U.S. 235 Pg. 319 |
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. |
|
Poole v. Textron, Inc. United States District Court for the District of Maryland 192 F.R.D. 494 Pg. 667 |
||
|
Saadeh v. Farouki United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1997 107 F.3d 52 Pg. 198 |
Plaintiff, a Greek citizen, lent money to defendant, a Jordanian living in Maryland. | Under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332 (a), for Federal Courts to have diversity jurisdiction, at least one party must be a "citizen of a State." The statute provides that, "an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled." |
|
Semtek Intl. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. Supreme Court of the United States, 2001 531 U.S. 497 Pg. 917 |
Plaintiff brought a claim in a California state court. The defendant removed in a diversity action. The California federal court, applying California law, dismissed the action because the statute of limitations had run. Plaintiff sued again in Maryland state court, which dismissed because of res judicata. They hold that because federal court would dismiss for res judicata per Fed. R. Civ Proc. 41(b), so must they, regardless of whether California courts would treat as claim precluded or not. | A state court need not give a federal court's decision based on another state's laws a broader scope than that state would give it. This is based on federal common law. Need not give same effect federal court would give it unless strong federal interest. |
|
Shaffer v. Heitner Supreme Court of the United States, 1977 433 U.S. 186 Pg. 130 |
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." |
|
Temple v. Synthes Corp. United States Supreme Court, 1990 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990) Pg. 539 |
Petitioner, Temple, brought an action against Synthes Corp., manufacturer of a "plate and screw device" that was implanted in Temple's lower spine, after the device's screws broke off inside his back. Synthes Corp. filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join as necessary parties doctor who performed implant surgery and hospital where surgery was performed. The United States District Court ordered joinder of doctor and hospital, and dismissed suit with prejudice when Temple failed to comply. Temple appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. | "[A] tortfeasor with the usual 'joint-and-several' liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability." |
|
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson Supreme Court of the United States, 1980 444 U.S. 286 Pg. 60 |
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." |
|
Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvannia 139 F. Supp. 408 Pg. 459 |
||
|
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLP United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2003 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Pg. 615 |
Zubulake is suing her former employer for gender discrimination, failure to promote and retaliation. She is claiming that the evidence she needs to prove her case is available only on defendant UBS's computer systems and that UBS has failed to preserve the evidence. | "Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents." |