Civil Procedure: Cases, Materials, and Questions

Freer, Perdue
5th Edition
ISBN: 978-1422407103

View Casebook Case Listing
View Casebook Summary Table

Page	Case Name	Citation	Court	Audio
751	Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor	521 U.S. 591 (1997)	United States Supreme Court, 1997	Download
789	Anderson v. Bessemer City	470 U.S. 564 (1985)	United States Supreme Court, 1985	Download
77	Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court	480 U.S. 102	Supreme Court of the United States, 1987	Download
298	Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly	127 S. Ct. 1955	United States Supreme Court, 2007	Download
64	Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz	471 U.S. 462	Supreme Court of the United States, 1985	Download
94	Burnham v. Superior Court	495 U.S. 604	Supreme Court of the United States, 1990	Download
455	Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative	356 U.S. 525	Supreme Court of the United States, 1958	Download
497	Celotex Corp. v. Catrett	477 U.S. 317 (1986)	United States Supreme Court, 1986	Download
436	Chauffers, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry	494 U.S. 558 (1990)	United States Supreme Court, 1990	Download
181	Erie Railroad v. Tompkins	304 U.S. 64	Supreme Court of the United States, 1938	Download
553	Hanna v. Plummer	380 U.S. 460	Supreme Court of the United States, 1965	Download
599	Hansberry v. Lee	311 U.S. 32 (1940)	United States Supreme Court, 1940	Download
67	Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall	466 U.S. 408	Supreme Court of the United States, 1983	Download
387	Hickman v. Taylor	329 U.S. 495	Supreme Court of the United States, 1947	Download
36	International Shoe v. Washington	326 U.S. 310	Supreme Court of the United States, 1945	Download
211	Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley	211 U.S. 149	Supreme Court of the United States, 1908	Download
48	Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.	339 U.S. 306	Supreme Court of the United States, 1950	Download
663	Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger	437 U.S. 365 (1978)	United States Supreme Court, 1978	Download
454	Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore	439 U.S. 322 (1979)	United States Supreme Court, 1979	Download
22	Pennoyer v. Neff	95 U.S. 714	Supreme Court of the United States, 1877	Download
136	Pavalovich v. Superior Court	29 Cal. 4th 262, 58 P.3d 2	Supreme Court of California, 2002	Download
257	Piper Aircraft v. Reyno	454 U.S. 235	Supreme Court of the United States, 1981	Download
98	Shaffer v. Heitner	433 U.S. 186	Supreme Court of the United States, 1977	Download
721	State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Century Home Components	275 Or. 97, 550 P.2d 1185 (1976)	The Supreme Court of Oregon, 1976	Download
182	Strawbridge v. Curtiss	7 U.S. 267	Supreme Court of the United States, 1806	Download
697	Temple v. Synthes Corp.	498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990)	United States Supreme Court, 1990	Download
46	World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson	444 U.S. 286	Supreme Court of the United States, 1980	Download
371	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
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor United States Supreme Court, 1997 521 U.S. 591 (1997) Pg. 751	Amchem Products, who manufacture asbestos products, had a stipulation of proposed global settlement of claims by persons exposed to asbestos, which had been court-approved. When additional plaintiffs attempted to bring further action against them, Amchem moved to enjoin for failure to timely opt out of class.	Rule 23 is fundamentally concerned with insuring that a proposed class has sufficient unity so that absentees can fairly be bound by the class representatives' decisions, and it applies to both trials and settlements.
Anderson v. Bessemer City United States Supreme Court, 1985 470 U.S. 564 (1985) Pg. 789	Ms. Anderson applied for a position as the city recreation and after she failed to secure the job, she brought suit against Bessemer City for sex discrimination because it hired a male applicant.	"[A] finding is 'clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on entire evidence is left with definite and firm conviction that mistake has been committed. . . . Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous."
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 480 U.S. 102 Pg. 77	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."
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly United States Supreme Court, 2007 127 S. Ct. 1955 Pg. 298	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. 64	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. 94	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. 455	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.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett United States Supreme Court, 1986 477 U.S. 317 (1986) Pg. 497	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. 436	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.'"
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Supreme Court of the United States, 1938 304 U.S. 64 Pg. 181	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.]
Hanna v. Plummer Supreme Court of the United States, 1965 380 U.S. 460 Pg. 553	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."
Hansberry v. Lee United States Supreme Court, 1940 311 U.S. 32 (1940) Pg. 599	Anna M. Lee and others brought an action against Carl A. Hansberry and others, to enjoin the breach of an agreement restricting the use of land within a described area of the City of Chicago. The Hansberrys are a black family that bought a house in an area covered by a racially restrictive covenant.	A judgment in personam rendered in a litigation in which a person is not a party is not entitled to the full faith and credit which the federal constitution and statute prescribe, and judicial action enforcing it against the person or property "of the absent party does not afford the that protection to absent parties which due process requires."
Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall Supreme Court of the United States, 1983 466 U.S. 408 Pg. 67	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. 387	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. 36	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.'"
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley Supreme Court of the United States, 1908 211 U.S. 149 Pg. 211	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.
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Supreme Court of the United States, 1950 339 U.S. 306 Pg. 48	Trust fund proceeding is announced in local paper and is challenged because of sufficiency of notice.	Notice must be reasonable.
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger United States Supreme Court, 1978 437 U.S. 365 (1978) Pg. 663	Geraldine Kroger, an Iowa citizen, sued Nebraska electric utility to recover for alleged wrongful death of her husband, who was electrocuted when boom of a steel crane next to which he was walking came too close to utility's high-tension power line. The utility company then filed a third-party complaint against Owen Equipment & Erection Co. which owned and operated the crane, at which time Kroger amended her complaint to name Owen Equipment as an additional defendant. The United States District Court entered judgment in favor of Kroger and Owen Equipment appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.	"A plaintiff cannot complain if ancillary jurisdiction does not encompass all of his possible claims in a case such as this one, since it is he who has chosen the federal rather than the state forum and must thus accept its limitations."
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore United States Supreme Court, 1979 439 U.S. 322 (1979) Pg. 454	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. 22	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.
Pavalovich v. Superior Court Supreme Court of California, 2002 29 Cal. 4th 262, 58 P.3d 2 Pg. 136	Defendant posted DVD decryption code on his web site, enabling public to circumvent plaintiff's technology contained on the DVDs. Plaintiff, a California corporation, sues defendant in California state court. Defendant lives and works in Texas, and has no contacts with California (other than the cyber domino effect of his actions).	In INTERNET cases, the determination of personal jurisdiction adheres to a "sliding scale analysis: At one end of the spectrum ... if the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end ... a passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction. The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site."
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno Supreme Court of the United States, 1981 454 U.S. 235 Pg. 257	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.
Shaffer v. Heitner Supreme Court of the United States, 1977 433 U.S. 186 Pg. 98	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."
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Century Home Components The Supreme Court of Oregon, 1976 275 Or. 97, 550 P.2d 1185 (1976) Pg. 721	A fire started in defendant's shed and spread to a warehouse where plaintiffs stored property. After one judgment was returned in favor of the defendant, and two were in favor of the plaintiffs, 13 additional claimants brought suit to recover for damage to their property resulting from the same fire. The Circuit Court ruled that the defendant was collaterally estopped from contesting liability, and the defendant appealed.	"[W]here it is apparent that the verdict was the result of a jury compromise, the losing party should not be precluded by the judgment. . . It has also been held that it the prior determination was manifestly erroneous the judgment should not be given preclusive effect."
Strawbridge v. Curtiss Supreme Court of the United States, 1806 7 U.S. 267 Pg. 182	"Some of the complainants were alleged to be citizens of the state of Massachusetts. The defendants were also stated to be citizens of the same state, excepting Curtiss, who was averred to be a citizen of the state of Vermont, and upon whom the subpoena was served in that state."	"The words of the act of congress are, 'where an alien is a party; or the suit is between a citizen of a state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state.'"
Temple v. Synthes Corp. United States Supreme Court, 1990 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990) Pg. 697	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. 46	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."
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. 371	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."