CivPro Outline - Practice Questions

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/9

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

10 Terms

1
New cards

A federal law claim can be filed only in a federal court. True or false?

False.
In most cases over which the federal district courts have SMJ, including in cases involving federal law claims, state courts also have SMJ. The only exceptions exist where Congress has expressly stated that the claim must be heard only in federal court.

2
New cards

Assume that Congress passes a statute that says that "federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs arising under federal law, but only when the plaintiffs have alleged damages in excess of $100 million." This statute would be:
A. Unconstitutional because Art. III § 2 of the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the authority to restrict SMJ according to the amount of damages alleged.
B. Unconstitutional because this is not one of the 9 types of cases specified in Art. III § 2 of the Constitution over which the federal district courts can exercise SMJ.
C. Unconstitutional if a court found that the amount-in-controversy requirement is so high that it would effectively undermine a plaintiff’s access to federal district court.
D. Constitutional.

D. Constitutional.
Federal question jurisdiction is one of the 9 categories of Art. III § 2. That tells us how much SMJ authority federal courts actually have, assuming Congress decides to authorize it. Congress can decide to not authorize the federal district courts to hear all 9 categories of SMJ or can authorize the federal district courts to hear certain categories of cases in ways that are more restrictive than what Art. III would otherwise permit.

3
New cards

Congress can authorize federal courts to exercise SMJ in any category of case as longa s the Constitution does not prohibit it. True or false?

False.
Congress can only authorize federal courts to exercise SMJ over a particular category of cases if that category is within one of the nine categories found in Art. III § 2. Congress can’t authorize federal courts to hear cases that are not within Art. III.

4
New cards

Congress passes a law stating that “the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over any case arising under federal law, but only when there are multiple plaintiffs.” Maki wants to file against Naoya, alleging that Naoya violated a federal statute. Maki is the only plaintiff. Which of the following statements is the most accurate?
A. SMJ would exist in federal district court and state court
B. SMJ would exist in federal court, but not in state court.
C. SMJ would exist in state court, but not in federal court.
D. SMJ would not exist in either federal or state court.

C. SMJ would not exist in either federal or state court.
The federal courts would not have SMJ over Lily’s claim because Congress has not authorized it. Congress has specified that federal law claims must have multiple plaintiffs, and there is only one here.

5
New cards

Geto wants to bring a state law claim against Gojo. Which of the following is most accurate?
A. The claim cannot be filed in federal court.
B. The claim can be filed in federal court.
C. It is possible that the claim can be filed in federal court, but we do not have enough information to know for sure.

C. It is possible that the claim can be filed in federal court, but we do not have enough information to know for sure.
Some, but not all, state law claims can be filed in federal court. A state law claim could be brought before a federal court if it met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. In order to determine whether the federal district court does have SMJ over Robert’s state law claim, we need to know if it falls within one of the 9 categories of Art. III § 2 and whether Congress has authorized that form of SMJ.

6
New cards

Art. III § 2 grants SMJ to federal courts in controversies between a state and citizens of another state. Assume Congress has not passed a law that authorizes federal district courts to hear such cases. Yuji, a citizen of Oklahoma, sues the State of Texas in federal district court for breach of contract (which is a state law claim). Which of the following statements is the most accurate?
A. There is SMJ in the federal district court because the claim is between a state (Texas) and a citizen of another state (Yuji, from Oklahoma)
B. There is no SMJ in the federal district court because Yuji is alleging a state law claim.
C. There is no SMJ in the federal district court because there is no constitutional authority for the federal district court to hear the case.
D. There is no SMJ in the federal district court because Congress has not authorized SMJ in this type of case.

D. There is no SMJ in the federal district court because Congress has not authorized SMJ in this type of case.
The federal district courts may have Constitutional authority to hear a case of this sort, but that does not mean that they actually can. There must also be statutory authority for the federal district courts to exercise SMJ over a case, and there is no such authority here.

7
New cards

Which of the following statements most accurately describes SMJ of federal and state courts?
A. Cases that can be heard in federal court cannot be heard in state court.
B. All cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court.
C. Most cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court.
D. Most cases that can be heard in state court can also be heard in federal court.
E. All cases that can be heard in state court can also be heard in federal court.

C. Most cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court.
Federal courts have SMJ over a relatively small number of cases (only those specified in Art. III § 2 and specified by statute passed by Congress). The vast majority of those cases can also be heard in state court. There is concurrent SMJ over most federal cases. The reverse is not true—the vast majority of cases that are heard in a state court cannot be heard in federal court.

8
New cards

Mahito files a complaint in federal district court against Nanami, Corp. Assume that Mahito’s complaint asserts a claim that falls within one of the nine types specified in Art. III, § 2 of the Constitution. Also assume that Congress has not passed a law expressly authorizing the federal district courts to hear this type of claim. Which of the following statements is most accurate?
A. The federal district courts have SMJ over the claim because Congress has not expressly prohibited SMJ over a claim like this one.
B. Even if Congress expressly prohibits SMJ over a claim like this one, the federal district courts have SMJ here because the Constitution expressly authorizes it.
C. The federal district courts do not have SMJ over the claim.
D. None of the above statements are accurate.

C. The federal district courts do not have SMJ over the claim.
SMJ exists in federal district courts only if: (1) the Constitution authorizes it and (2) Congress authorizes it. Here, Congress has not authorized this particular type of SMJ in question.

9
New cards

If a plaintiff brings a state law claim in Minnesota, any state court in Minnesota has SMJ. True or false?

False.
A state law claim can be filed in state court, but not any state court. There are different types of state courts and each type has its own SMJ.

10
New cards

Geto files a complaint in federal district court against Tech, Corp. Assume that Geto’s complaint asserts a claim that falls within one of the nine types specified in Art. III § 2 of the Constitution. Also assume that Congress has passed a law expressly authorizing the federal district courts to hear this type of case but has not specified whether the state courts can hear the case as well. Which of the following statements is most accurate?
A. A state court would not have SMJ because Congress has not authorized it.
B. A state court would not have SMJ over the case, even if Congress were to expressly authorize it.
C. A state court would have SMJ over the case.

C. A state court would have SMJ over the case.
State courts generally have SMJ over just about any type of case, unless Congress has expressly given the federal courts exclusive SMJ. Because Congress has not done so here, a state court can hear this case.