The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
Citizenship or domicile = physical presence and no present intention to move
assessed at the time of lawsuit
rationale is to protect against local prejudice
requires $75,000 (amount in controversy)
Elements of Citizenship of a State for diversity jurisdiction.
1. Physical presence in the state
2. No intention to move/leave
Request to the court to do "something"
Already adjudicated - cases that have been heard and an outcome has been rendered.
appeals made prior to final determination of a case - ONLY in special instances
Appeals made in the middle of the case - ie attorney is in contempt of court and thrown in jail. An appeal might be made -
14TH AMENDMENT - Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
ARTICLE IV -- SECTION 1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Can only argue about Jurisdiction - NOTHING ELSE.
Idea of Jurisdiction
The idea of J - is the power to declare law. ie.. the power of a court to render a judgement that other courts and goverrnment agencies wil recognize and enforce.
To render a legitimate decision; 2 things must happen
1. Personal or Territorial - J ; power over defendant or property
2. Subject Matter - J -
Has 3 types
1. In personam or Personal J.
2. In rem J - affecting to "things" property
3. Quasi in rem - affecting the interests of particular persons. (Schaffer v. Heitner)
Supreme Court upheld.
Challenge Personal Jurisdiction
1. Not show up and allow default judgement
2. Make special appearance - available in some state courts NOT available in Federal Courts. ( allows for person to only challenge J - can't be served as being "present'
If you want to raise personal J
- The first paper served to court MUST ague J
- FR 12(b)(2)
Responds only to a case brought under quasi in rem J.
Limits to ONLY things that have been attached by the court - IE piece of land - nothing else can't attach accounts or other properties.
- In a limited appearance, defendant appears and fights on the merits. However, by doing so defendant does not consent or waive an objection to personal jurisdiction. The defendant’s appearance is limited to the
- value of the res seized to begin the case.
Exam - Personal Jurisdiction - International Shoe
For a non-resident to be held to in personam J - under International Shoe requires only that the defendant have:
1. "MINIMUM CONTACTS" with the state
2. that the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" FPSJ
A Specific behaviors of the defendant
toward the state and :
- B. Done with a certain mentality or
- intentionality, “purposeful availment,” that
- enters the state for some gain, or takes advantage of the state’s infrastructure, in a way that justifies the state in asserting that defendant must reciprocally be answerable to suit in the state
Behaviors and Mentality - Barton
Substantial Justice & Fair Play (SJFP)
Think of this as a fairness concern, measured by a combination of:
•A. The burden on the defendant of appearing in the state;
- •B. The regulatory interests of the state in
- enforcing its laws or protecting its citizens; and
•C. The convenience to the plaintiff of bringing the action in the forum state.
General Jurisdiction (personal)
• Where a corporation operates substantially and permanently (like in the principal place of business), then its contacts are so dense that the state will be said to have “general jurisdiction“ over it.
- • Even suits unrelated to business in that state may be brought in the general
- jurisdiction state.
- • Where the contacts of a defendant with a state are not so dense or permanent, then only claims which arise out of the specific actions taken by the defendant in the forum
- state will be amenable to suit in that state.
• This is known as “specific” jurisdiction.
Quasi in Rem
legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction. In the American legal system the state can assert power over an individual simply based on the fact that this individual has property (bank account, debt, share of stock, land) in the state. Quasi in rem jurisdiction does not have much function in the United States any longer. However, in very specific cases, quasi in rem jurisdiction can still be effective.
Federal Court - Personal Jurisdiction
Federal Courts apply the "same" rules when determining personal jurisdiction.
PJ - Substantial Justice / Fair Play
Think of this as fairness concern, measured by a combination of:
A. The burden on the defendant of appearing in the state;
- B. The regulatory interests of the state in
- enforcing its laws or protecting its citizens; and
C. The convenience to the plaintiff of bringing the action in the forum state.
Service of Process - FR 4
Normally the federal courts only have peronal J over defendants who wojld be subject to the J of the state in which the federal court sits
Rule - FR 4(k) (1) (A)
Exception to FR 4
FR 4 K 1 B-D
First if additional parties are joined under certain joinder rules the federal courts have broader personal J over the joined parties. - within 100 miles
If same STATE on BOTH sides of the V - then complete diversity does not exist.
ie. CA v. CA
if multiple plaintiffs/defendants then none can be in the same state.
The Erie Doctrine
The question of the Erie doctrine is:
- In hearing those state matters, must the federal courts apply state laws, or are
- the federal courts free to develop and use their own rules?
General Rule - Federal judges must follow state rules / when hearing diversity cases.
Rules of Decision - Act
- It said simply, “the laws of the several states … shall be regarded as rules of
- decisions in civil actions [in federal courts]
- in cases where they apply.” 28
- U.S.C. 1652
Swift v. Tyson
Supreme court ruled that state common law could be IGNORED by federal judges. But statutes must be followed.