legal studies chapter 3 and 4

Chapter 3 and 4

3.1. Types of Jurisdiction a Court Must Have

• Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The court must have the authority to hear the specific type of case. For example, federal courts handle cases involving federal law, while state courts handle matters under state law.

• Personal Jurisdiction: The court must have authority over the parties involved. This can be established if the defendant resides in the court's jurisdiction, has significant contacts with the state, or the issue took place within the state.

• In Rem Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over property located within the court’s boundaries, often relevant in property disputes.

• Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over a defendant's property, even if unrelated to the claim, as a means of ensuring the defendant appears in court.

3.2 enue Study Guide

What’s Venue?
Venue is the place where a court case is held. It’s about choosing the right location for the trial.

When Choosing a Venue, Remember:

1. Where the Defendant Lives: The trial usually happens where the defendant (person being sued) lives.

2. Where the Property is: If it’s about property (like land), the trial is usually where the property is located.

3. Where the Incident Happened: If the case is about an event (like an accident), the trial is usually where that event happened.

Who Decides Venue?

• The Plaintiff Chooses First: The person suing (plaintiff) picks the venue from the options above.

Change of Venue

• Defendant’s Request: If the defendant thinks the location is inconvenient or unfair (like if the jury could be biased because of news coverage), they can ask to move the trial to a new location.

• Judge’s Call: The judge decides if the change is allowed.

Example to Remember

• In 2008, Sholom Rubashkin faced charges after a huge raid at his company. He asked to move the trial because of bad media coverage, but the judge said no, though she left room for him to ask again if media coverage got worse.

Quick Principle Recap
Venue = Where defendant lives, property is located, or incident occurred.

Simple Study Guide: Forum Selection and Choice of Law

What Are They?

• Forum Selection Clause: A part of a contract that says which court will handle any problems if they arise.

• Choice of Law Clause: A part of a contract that says which state or country’s laws will be used to solve any disputes.

Why Use Them?

• To avoid arguments over where to take a case and which laws to use.

• Saves businesses time and money if they need to go to court.

Key Case: Atlantic Marine Construction v. U.S. District Court (2013)

• What Happened: Atlantic Marine had a contract saying that any disputes should be resolved in Virginia. But the other company sued in Texas.

• Supreme Court Decision:

  • If there's a forum-selection clause, the case should be moved to the agreed court.

  • Courts should generally transfer cases to the specified location unless there’s a very good reason not to.

Main Points from the Case

• Contracts with a forum-selection clause should usually lead to the case being moved to that location.

• Only very special situations would stop this from happening.

For Consumers and Businesses

• Companies like Facebook often have clauses that say any legal disputes will be handled in a specific place (like Palo Alto, California).

• If a New Yorker sues Facebook, Facebook can likely move the case to Palo Alto because of their clause.

Choice-of-Law Clause

• This tells which laws apply to the contract.

• Courts usually agree with this choice if there’s a connection to that state.

What Should Entrepreneurs Do?

• Always put forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses in contracts, especially for international deals.

• Know that some places might let customers sue in their local area even if there’s a clause saying otherwise.

Bottom Line

• Forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses help make legal issues clear and save money.

• The Supreme Court supports enforcing these clauses, making business contracts more predictable.

3.3  Study Guide: Dual Court System Structure in the U.S.

The U.S. legal system has two main court systems: federal and state. Each has its own structure, and once a case is filed in one system, it stays there for the appeals process, except when appealed from a state supreme court to the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Federal Court System

Sources of Power: Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Levels of Courts:

• Trial Courts (U.S. District Courts):

  • There are 94 districts in the U.S., each with at least one district court.

  • These courts handle a variety of cases and can provide almost any remedy.

• Specialized Courts:

  • Some cases go to courts of limited jurisdiction established by Congress (e.g., bankruptcy, tax disputes).

  • Very few cases start directly at the U.S. Supreme Court, such as those involving state controversies or foreign ambassadors.

• Intermediate Courts of Appeal:

  • Comprised of 12 circuits, including one for the District of Columbia.

  • These courts hear appeals from district courts in their region and also from certain government agencies.

• Supreme Court:

  • The highest court in the federal system.

  • Deals with significant legal issues and interpretations.

2. State Court Systems

Structure: Each state has its own court system, but most resemble the federal system.

Levels of Courts:

• Trial Courts of General Jurisdiction:

  • Most cases begin here.

  • These courts can hear almost any case unless designated for limited jurisdiction.

• Trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction:

  • Handle specific types of cases (e.g., small claims, family matters).

  • Often have restrictions on the types of remedies they can provide.

• Intermediate Courts of Appeal:

  • Present in about half the states.

  • They review cases from both general and limited jurisdiction trial courts.

• Courts of Last Resort:

  • The highest court in a state, usually called the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals.

  • Hears appeals from intermediate courts or directly from trial courts in states without intermediate appellate courts.

Key Takeaways

• Two Parallel Systems: The U.S. legal framework is divided into federal and state systems, each with its own courts and procedures.

• Case Progression: Cases generally remain within their original system for the duration of the process.

• Specialized Courts: Both federal and state systems have specialized courts for specific types of cases, helping streamline legal processes.

• Appeals Process: The structure allows for appeals from lower courts to higher courts, ensuring checks and balances in the judicial process.

3.4

1. Standing

• Definition: The right to bring a lawsuit in court.

• Requirements:

  1. Injury in Fact: The plaintiff must show they were harmed in a real, concrete way.

  2. Causation: The harm must be directly related to the defendant’s actions.

  3. Redressability: The court’s decision can make things better for the plaintiff.

• Example: Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw: People couldn’t swim or fish in a polluted river, so they had standing to sue for environmental harm.

2. Case or Controversy

• Definition: There must be a real legal dispute, not just a hypothetical question.

• Requirements:

  1. Adverse Relationship: The plaintiff and defendant must have opposing interests.

  2. Legal Dispute: There must be an actual, ongoing conflict.

  3. Finality: The court must be able to provide a decision that solves the problem.

• Purpose: Prevents courts from giving “advice” on what might happen; courts deal with real issues only.

3. Ripeness

• Definition: The issue must be ready for court action, meaning it has immediate consequences.

• Key Concept: If there’s no point in a ruling because nothing can change, the case might be considered moot.

• Exhaustion-of-Remedies Doctrine: Before filing a lawsuit about a government rule, you must try all options with the agency first.

• Example: In Laidlaw, even though the company later followed pollution rules, the court kept the case because the penalty was still needed to deter future violations.

Summary

To bring a case to court, it must meet these requirements:

1. Standing (personal stake in outcome).

2. Case or Controversy (real, not hypothetical dispute).

3. Ripeness (issue affects the parties immediately).

3.5

Civil Litigation Study Guide

1. Informal Negotiations

• What Happens: The parties (plaintiff and defendant) try to resolve their dispute through informal discussions.

• Goal: Avoid going to court. Attorneys may be consulted to help settle the matter.

2. Pleadings

• Complaint: The plaintiff formally files a complaint to start the lawsuit, stating:

  • The facts of the case

  • The legal grounds for the lawsuit

  • The remedy or relief the plaintiff seeks

• Service of Process: The defendant is notified by receiving a copy of the complaint and summons.

  • Summons: A legal document that tells the defendant they must respond to avoid default judgment (automatic win for the plaintiff).

• Defendant’s Response:

  • Answer: The defendant can admit, deny, or claim no knowledge of each of the plaintiff’s claims.

  • Affirmative Defense: The defendant may admit the facts but present a legally valid reason for their actions (e.g., self-defense).

  • Motion to Dismiss: If the law does not support the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant can ask the court to dismiss the case.

  • Counterclaim: The defendant can file a claim against the plaintiff if they believe they have been wronged by the plaintiff.

3. Discovery

• Purpose: Both sides gather evidence and information to prepare for trial.

• Discovery Tools:

  • Interrogatories: Written questions that must be answered under oath by the other party.

  • Depositions: In-person questioning of witnesses under oath, recorded by a court reporter.

  • Requests for Documents: Requesting documents like contracts, emails, or financial records.

  • Requests for Admissions: Asking the other side to admit or deny specific facts to narrow down the issues for trial.

4. Pretrial Motions & Conference

• Pretrial Motions: Requests made to the court, often to clarify or limit issues for trial:

  • Motion for Summary Judgment: Requesting the judge to decide the case without a trial if there’s no dispute over the key facts.

• Pretrial Conference: The judge meets with both sides to:

  • Narrow down issues for trial

  • Discuss timelines and deadlines

  • Encourage settlement to avoid trial

5. Trial

• Jury Selection: For jury trials, both parties participate in choosing unbiased jurors.

• Opening Statements: Each side presents an outline of their case to the judge or jury.

• Presentation of Evidence and Witnesses:

  • Each side presents evidence, such as documents or objects.

  • Witnesses are called to testify, and both sides can cross-examine them.

• Closing Arguments: Each side summarizes their case and argues why they should win.

• Verdict:

  • Jury Trial: The jury deliberates and issues a verdict.

  • Bench Trial (no jury): The judge decides the outcome based on the evidence and law.

6. Post-Trial Motions

• Motion for a New Trial: Filed by the losing party if they believe there were errors during the trial.

• Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict: Asking the judge to overrule an unreasonable verdict by the jury.

7. Appeal

• Purpose: The losing party may appeal to a higher court, arguing that there was a legal error in the trial process.

• Appeal Process: Appeals focus on legal issues, not on re-examining facts. The appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision and may:

  • Affirm (uphold) the decision

  • Reverse (overturn) the decision

  • Remand (send the case back for further proceedings)

8. Collecting the Judgment

• If the plaintiff wins: They may need to take further steps to collect the judgment, especially if the defendant does not voluntarily pay.

  • Methods: Wage garnishment, seizing assets, or other enforcement measures if allowed by law.

Study Guide: Learning Objectives for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

4-1: Compare the Primary Forms of ADR

• Negotiation: Informal, voluntary discussion between parties to resolve a dispute without third-party involvement.

• Mediation: A neutral mediator helps the parties reach a mutually agreeable solution but does not impose a decision. Useful for preserving relationships.

• Arbitration: A neutral arbitrator makes a binding decision. Often used in contracts and employment disputes as a quicker alternative to court.

• Comparison Points:

  • Decision Authority: Only arbitration results in a binding decision.

  • Level of Formality: Negotiation is the least formal; arbitration is the most formal.

  • Cost and Time: ADR generally saves time and money compared to court, but arbitration can still be costly.

4-2: Describe Less Frequently Used ADR Methods

• Summary Jury Trial: A shortened trial where a jury gives a nonbinding verdict, used to help parties gauge trial outcomes.

• Mini-Trial: Both sides present their cases to a panel or neutral advisor, usually in a business setting, to encourage negotiation afterward.

• Neutral Case Evaluation: An expert in the field reviews the case and gives a nonbinding opinion, which can prompt settlement discussions.

• Private Trials: Cases are tried by a private judge for confidentiality, often in highly sensitive or high-stakes disputes.

4-3: Explain Court-Annexed ADR

• Court-Annexed ADR: ADR programs linked to or required by the court system, offering a way to settle disputes before going to trial.

  • Examples: Mediation or arbitration sessions that are court-mandated to alleviate court backlog.

  • Benefits: Reduces court caseload, speeds up resolutions, and saves costs for both parties.

  • Legal Mandate: The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 requires federal district courts to have ADR programs.

4-4: Recall How ADR is Used in International Disputes

• International ADR: ADR methods, particularly arbitration and mediation, are widely used for cross-border commercial disputes due to their flexibility and neutrality.

  • Common Organizations: The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) provide ADR frameworks for international disputes.

  • Benefits: ADR offers confidentiality, impartiality, and a neutral venue, which is important in international contexts.

  • Growth: With increased global trade, ADR has become a preferred method for resolving international disputes, avoiding the complexities of foreign court systems.