GVPT 331- Exam 1

12 (b)(6) motion

Motion to dismiss due to failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

Erie Doctrine

When standing in diversity jurisdiction, federal courts apply substantive state law (law of the forum state) but use the federal rules of civil procedure

Summary judgement

Pre-trial ruling that is granted when the court decides there is no genuine dispute regarding any material facts. Looks at evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party

Interlocutory appeal

A legal challenge to a non-final order issued by a trial court or administrative judge before the final judgement of a case

Diversity jurisdiction

Plaintiff and defendant reside in different states and there are at least $75,000 worth of damages

Dicta

Statements by a judge concerning a point of law that are not essential for the decision of the case and does not establish binding prescedent

Stare Decisis

Requires the lower courts to follow legal precedent established by higher courts

Standing

Is the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit the right person or entity to be bringing this particular claim before the court

Ripeness

A case is ripe if is has developed sufficiently to be before a court of adjudication

Mootness

There is no longer a case or controversy to rule on

Justiciability

A case must be well suited for judicial determination. Courts use judicial doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and res judicata to weed out cases that lack justiciability

Case/controversy requirement

Restricts the federal courts from advising the other branches of government or anyone else

Res judicata

In cases that are settled, a certain controversy can’t be re-litigated

Default judgement

A court order in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant fails to file a written answer in a timely manner

Discovery

Prior to civil action, each party is entitled to information in the possession of others

Subpoena Duces Tectum

An issue by the court that commands a witness to produce a document that is in his or her possession

Voir Dire

Examination is conducted to determine each juror’s qualifications for jury duty under the appropriate statute and any grounds for a challenge for cause or information on which to base a peremptory challenge

Additur

The process where a judge increases the amount of damages awarded by a jury

Remittitur

A judge issues an order reducing excessive damages awarded by a jury

Privity

Exists when there is a relationship between two people that allows one not directly involved in the case to take the place of one who is a party

Identity of claims

Exists when the same factual transaction or occurrence forms the basis of a second lawsuit

Claim preclusion

The term used by many jurisdictions now where referring to res judicata

Real property

Any property that that is permanent and immovable. ex. a house

Fixed property

Property that is attached to real property. Ex. blinds or curtains

Personal property

Property that is movable and tangible. Ex. a car

In personam jurisdiction

A court’s legal authority to render a binding decision over a specific person or entity involved in a lawsuit, regardless of where they are located

In rem jurisdiction

The court has jurisdiction over the property that is in dispute

DuPont v. Christopher facts

Defendants were found guilty of industrial espionage for taking aerial photographs of the plaintiff’s methane plant in Texas, exposing a classified trade secret, and sending it to a third party

Dupont holding and reasoning

It is improper to obtain knowledge of a trade secret that the secret holder did not voluntarily disclose. Hyde Corporation v. Huffines- it is improper to obtain a trade secret that is a breach of confidence for a company

NFIB v. Sebelius facts

The government issued an individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act to require the purchase of health insurance. They claimed they could do this under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clause

NFIB v. Sebelius holding and reasoning

Congress has the constitutional authority under their ability to tax but not the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clause. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate commercial activity but this mandate is does not regulate existing commercial activity, but rather compels individuals to engage in commerce

State v. Butler facts

The defendant struck a woman with a jack handle, causing her to lose her eye. During interrogation they didn’t explain the Miranda Rights to the defendant. During the original trial the defendant claimed the information the police got during examination couldn’t be used because of his Fifth Amendment rights. But, during cross examination he made statements about the crime that confirmed him as guilty

State v. Butler holding and reasoning

Butler can be convicted of aggravated assault. Since statements during trial were made voluntarily in court this is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment

Dempsey v. Allstate facts

This cased relied on whether Chevron could be applied to the case even if this is a civil case, not criminal

Dempsey v. Allstate holding and reasoning

As long as all three Chevron facts are present, then the test can be applied. As long as it is applied to the rule of retroactivity then it can be used.

Strunk v. Stunk facts

Tommy Stunk was dying from kidney disease and needed a transplant to live. The only matching donor was his brother Jerry who was feeble-minded.

Strunk v. Strunk holding and reasoning

The court has the power to authorize a kidney to be removed from an incompetent ward of state to save his brother who is dying from fatal kidney disease. Law KRS 387.230 allows a committee to use their inherent power to subject a ward to surgical procedures as long as the procedure is not life threatening to them

Cheap Escape v. Haddox facts

Cheap Escape and Haddox entered into contracts. The contracts stated that if either party wasn’t in compliance with the agreement, the Franklin County Court would settle the litigation. But, the events that breached the contract occurred outside of Franklin County

Cheap Escape v. Haddox holding and reasoning

The courts don’t have subject matter jurisdiction over matter over matters lacking connection to their geographical territories. Due to law R.C. 1901.18(A) courts only have original jurisdiction over breach of contact cases that occurred within their geographical territory, regardless of what the contract says

Swoboda v. Hero Deck facts

Parody Productions sell a product over the internet called Hero Decks, that include players from different teams including Swoboda. Swoboda claims he never gave the company permission to use his image and ordered a cease and assist in Louisiana for the continued use of his name and likeness. Parody then filed exceptions for lack of personal jurisdiction

Swobada v. Hero Decks holding and reasoning

An internet merchandiser that has not established minimum contacts with a forum state can’t be subjected to personal jurisdiction. Although the products being bought be Louisiana residents establishes minimum contacts, it isn’t enough to warrant personal jurisdiction. The company is simply opperrating an interactive website that allows everyone in the U.S. to purchase and use the cards. Exercising personal jurisdiction would violate 14th Amendment Due Process because Louisiana would be violating “fair play and substantial justice” and would overreached their jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction

The court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff and defendant

Salmon v. Atkinson facts

Salmon hired Atkinson to pursue a claim over damages to the estate of George Brown. They came to an agreement that Atkinson would receive fifty percent of recovery plus costs and expenses for their work. After the plaintiff’s researched and and presented a petition to Salmon, she decided their service was no longer needed. The plaintiffs argued that since their contract was broken Salmon is required to pay them for their work

Salmon v. Atkinson holding and reasoning

The recovery fee is dependent on the contingency agreed to in their contract. The “New York” Rule states when a client is terminated, the contingent-fee contract still exists. It is not fair to discharge an attorney and then refuse to pay them for the work they did

Johnson v. Cintas facts

Johnson sent a summons and complaint where he named Cintas Corporation, the parent corporation of Cintas No 2. He failed to properly name the correct corporate entity in his summons and complaint

Johnson v. Cintas holding and reasoning

Since the plaintiff named the wrong entity in their summons and complaint, the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the entity he meant to raise his complain to. Wisconsin statue makes it clear that since Johnson listed the wrong legal entity, a case can’t be tried against Cintas No 2.

Idnani v. Venus Capital facts

There had been a long-running dispute between the parties. The plaintiff collected, processed, and searched electronic files made available by the defendant. Venus Capital’s Chief Executive Officer then reviewed the documents and decided to discard whatever he thought was irrelevant to the litigation and he went against his own counsel. On trial he then admitted these documents had statement for Venus funds, vendor invoices, and credit card statements

Idnani v. Venus Capital holding and reasoning

It is illegal to destroy documents and claiming that they are irrelevant does not hold up in a court of law. The defendant was aware of his duties to preserve these records and went against the world of his own counsel to destroy them. This clearly violates Rule 34 requests of the plaintiff as his intentions were unlawful and intentional, resulting in the loss of evidence that could have potentially been relevant and helpful for the plaintiff

Utah v. Timmerman facts

Mrs. Timmerman filled out a report claiming Mr. Timmerman repeatedly hit her and tried to force her to have intercourse. A nurse then filled out a Sexual Assault Nurse Examination confirming her statement. At the preliminary hearing Mrs. Timmerman then tried to invoke spousal privilege to not testify against her husband. When the state tried to step in with the SANE report and witness testimony, Mr. Timmerman argued out of court evidence can’t be admitted in court due to spousal privilege

Utah v. Timmerman holding and reasoning

Spousal testimonial privilege only applies to in-court testimony, not out-of-court statements made to third parties. Under Utah law admitting out of court statements as evidence isn’t forcing a spouse to testify against the other, it is simply admitting key evidence that the state already has access to

Chafin v. Chafin facts

Mr. Chafin who was a U.S. citizen married Mrs. Chafin who was a U.K. citizen and they had a daughter when Mr. Chafin was stationed in Germany. The mom and daughter then moved to Scotland while Mr. Chafin was deployed in Afghanistan. She then took the kid to Alabama and Mrs. Chafin filed for divorce and child custody. She was then arrested for domestic violence which alerted Immigration Services she overstayed her visa and Mr. Chafin tried to regain custody

Chafin v. Chafin holding and reasoning

The appeals of Mr. Chafin for child custody are not moot. Article II of the Constituion states a case is only moot if relief can’t be granted to the prevailing party. Since Mr. Chafin can very much seek relief by gaining custody of his daughter, the case is not moot.

Atkins v. Jiminy Peak facts

Atkins claimed to suffer injury while at the defendant’s ski resort, and those injuries were caused by defective ski equipment. She also claimed the defendant had not inspected or adjusted the equipment which amounted to negligence and breach of contract. But she failed to file within the one-year statute of limitations

Atkins v. Jiminy Peak holding and reasoning

The one year statute of limitations applies in cases of an injured skier against a ski area operator. Massachusetts general law section 71 imposes a one-year statute of limitations on actions against a ski area operator for injury to a skier. The language of the law leaves no room for interpretation and this case clearly falls within the statute of limitation

In re Boston Beer facts

Boston Beer Company filed an application to register their trademark as “The Best Beer in America".” They claimed the case had secondary meaning based on the promotion they used including the phrase

In re Boston Beer holding and reasoning

Boston Beer can’t coin the phrase “The Best Beer in America” as trademark. Under federal law, slogans that are laudatory and merely descriptive can’t be a trademark because they can’t establish a secondary meaning through commercialization. Phrases need to establish secondary meaning in order for them to be trademarked

BMG v. Gonzalez facts

Gonzalez downloaded 1,370 copyrighted songs through a file sharing network and was caught doing so. She claimed she was just sampling music to determine if she liked it, but instead of erasing songs she decided to keep them in full

BMG v. Gonzalez holding and reasoning

The music Gonzalez downloaded is not considered fair use. Title 17 Section 107 of U.S. considers purpose of use, amount used, and effect of the use upon potential market value and this case is clearly infringing on that. The nature, amount, and effects these downloads had on market value were a clear violation of the law.

Favorite v. Miller facts

A band of patriots toppled over a statue in 1776. The pieces of the statue were then sent over to CT where loyalists were able to steal the statue back. The pieces were then scattered in Davis Swamp in Wilton. Many years later Miller entered the area, which he knew to be private property, and found a fragment of the statue and sold the piece to a museum. The plaintiff sued to have the fragment returned to them claiming to be the rightful owner

Favorite v. Miller holding and reasoning

The claim of the defendant is not superior to the plaintiffs. Since the defendant knew he was trespassing to find the statue, that defeats any claim that they defendant could be the finder of last property. The Clean Hands Doctrine states when someone is unaware of breaking the law they have clean hands. But, since Miller was aware that he was trespassing he does not have clean hands

Campbell v. Robinson facts

Matthew Campbell proposed and presented a ring to Ashley Robinson in 2005. In 2006 they agreed to postpone the wedding. The engagement was later called off, and there was a dispute over who the ring belonged to

Campbell v. Robinson holding and reasoning

Campbell owns the right to the ring because of Robinson’s breach of promise to marry. An engagement ring is a gift that is considered conditional upon the marriage taking place. Until the condition underlying the gift is fulfilled, the donor holds the property rights to the gift.

Kelo v. New London facts

The city of New London developed a plan to acquire property so a Pfizer facility could be built on the land to boost the local economy. The owners of the land did not want to sell their property, but the city argued the had the right to take over the property because of their use eminent domain under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment

Kelo v. New London holding and reasoning

The city of New London has the right to take over the property. Under the Takings Clause, the property being taken has to qualify as public use. Since this plans main goal was to promote economic development in the city it classified as serving public purpose, and fell within the jurisdiction of the Takings Clause.

Fontenot v. Taser facts

Fontenot had been employed at a grocery store and refused to leave after being fired. He started to engage in threatening behavior before the store called the police. The police used a taser on him twice, and Fontenot fell and could no be revived. In court, the judge denied JNOV and miscalculated the remittitur so Fontenot wanted a new trial

Fontenot v. Taser holding and reasoning

Fontenot can’t be granted a new trial because under Rule 59(a) there must be a verdict against the clear weight of the evidence, evidence must be fake, or evidence must result in a miscarriage of justice. Taser has not shown the verdict is any of these things

Hollingsworth v. Perry facts

Kristin Perry wanted to marry her same-sex partner but was refused under California Proposition 8. She filed in federal court claiming this violated their rights under the 14th Amendment due process and equal protection. The ProtectMarriage act who had initiated the proposition stepped in and became the defendant

Hollingsworth v. Perry holding and reasoning

The petitioners of Proposition 8 had the standing to appeal the order of the District Court to state court. The California State Court has the duty to uphold the interest of the people and are required to uphold Proposition 8 under the law even if they don’t personally agree with it

Kruckenberg v. Harvey facts

An original lawsuit was brought on Czyzewski against Harvey who allegedly dug a ditch on the boundary of his property, causing soil to collapse and the line fence with it as well as water level of the pond to subside. Czyzewski then sold the land to Kruckenberg who had the land surveyed and found out the line fence was not on the property boundary but rather 16 ft into his property. The defendant planted trees which Kruckenberg asked him to take down. he then sued for trespassing, conversion, and failure to provide lateral support.

Kruckenberg v. Harvey holding and reasoning

The doctrine of claim preclusion does not bar the plaintiff’s action against the defendant. Under the Restatement of Judgments this case is not making the same claim as the original case. Since the parties did not explicitly determine the property line in the original claim the plaintiff is allowed to make the case of trespass and conversion to legally determine the location of his property line.

Motion to dismiss due to judgement not withstanding the verdict (JNOV)

Granted when the judge decides that reasonable people could not have reached the verdict that the jury has reached

Evans v. Lockmere facts

In 1994, Evans filed against Lockmere Swim and Tennis Club claiming the noise from the speaker and crowd was disrupting the enjoyment of his property. In 1998 Lockmere Recreational Club took over the property and Evans filed for private nuisance

Evans v. Lockmere holding and reasoning

The defendants action are enough for the plaintiff to file nuisance. Since the noise from the club can be heard within his house with door and windows closed and is a disruption to the enjoyment of his property, it qualifies as private nuisance

When does the finder prevail and when does the owner prevail

Finder- if the property is lost or abandoned, owner- if the property is mislaid

Long Arm Statute

Permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who have had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state

Minimum contact

The minimum amount of contact that needs to be established between a party and forum state in order for them to have jurisdiction

Quantum Merit

A party is owed money for the work they put in

Contigent Fee Agreement

If the person wins the lawyers get paid, if they don’t win the lawyers don’t get paid

Elements of res judicata

Privity between the parties, the claim of action is the same, and there was a final judgement

Writ of centiorari

A order from a higher court to the lower court to send a case up for review

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The court has power over the subject-matter of the case

Motion to dismiss

The judge grants the motion only if a reasonable person could not rule in favor of the plaintiff after considering the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff