Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
100. Because more than one court cannot have jurisdiction over the same case, federal courts have removal jurisdiction
to insure that cases are moved to the proper state court.
a. True
b. False
101. An action may be removed from state court to federal court by a defendant based on diversity of citizenship.
a. True
b. False
102. A suit tried in federal court must use federal law to resolve the matter; a suit tried in state court must use state law
to resolve the matter.
a. True
b. False
103. A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California, for business to be done in California,
under California law, with parties from two different states could only be tried in California courts.
a. True
b. False
104. A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from
two different states could be tried in federal or California courts using the same law.
a. True
b. False
105. A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from
two different states could be tried in federal court using federal law or in a California court using California law. a.
True
b. False
106. A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from
two different states could be tried in federal court using federal law or in a California court using California law.
a. True
b. False
107. A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two
different states could be tried in federal court using California law or in a California court using California law. a.
True
b. False
108. A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from
two different states would be tried in a California court using California law.
a. True
b. False
109. The case Erie v. Tompkins, involving a man hit by a train in Pennsylvania, holds that federal courts must apply
either state common law or state statutory law in resolving disputes between citizens of different states.
a. True
b. False
110. In Erie v. Tompkins, where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that
the matter must be tried under federal law because the law of New York and Pennsylvania were in conflict.
a. True
b. False
111. In Erie v. Tompkins, where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that
federal common law, as first announced in Swift v. Tyson, had to be applied to cases where there was diversity of
citizenship, forcing the case into federal court.
a. True
b. False
112. In Erie v. Tompkins, where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that
federal common law, as first announced in Swift v. Tyson, was to be abandoned in favor of state common law.
a. True
b. False
113. A conflict-of-law arises when incidents occur that have taken place in more than one state or entirely in another
state from the one in which the lawsuit was filed.
a. True
b. False
114. Traditionally, in contracts cases, the conflict-of-law rule is that the law of the state in which a contract was
breached will determine the validity of the contract.
a. True
b. False
115. Courts often apply a "significant interest" test in conflicts-of-law cases to determine which court should have
jurisdiction over a dispute.
a. True
b. False
116. Some states require that no matter what the dispute, all cases must be tried under the law of that state. No conflict-
of-law tests will be applied.
a. True
b. False
117. BancorpSouth v. Hazelwood Logistics Center, where a Missouri bank sued a Missouri company, the appeals
court held that since both parties were in Missouri, the case had to be tried in the proper
venue—which
would be
Missouri state court.
a. True
b. False
118. In BancorpSouth v. Hazelwood Logistics Center, where a Missouri bank sued a Missouri company, the
appeals court held that since the contract between the parties allowed suit to be tried in federal court, that could
be a proper venue for trial.
a. True
b. False
119. Venue of a lawsuit concerns the fairness of the location in which a case is tried.
a. True
b. False
120. The venue of a case may be changed due to excessive publicity about the matter.
a. True
b. False
121. The doctrine of forum non conveniens is closely related to the issue of venue.
a. True
b. False
122. The doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only in federal district courts, not state trial courts.
a. True
b. False
Fact Pattern 2-1
Yoshi, a Japanese citizen working in Atlanta for his Tokyo firm, decided to rent an airplane and fly himself to the
Annual Catfish and Zydeco festival in Thibodaux, Louisiana. He rented a small plane to fly there. Over Alabama,
thunderstorms formed. Because Yoshi was not trained to fly by instruments, he decided to land at the next airport.
As he searched for a runway, Yoshi heard a loud clank followed by silence as the engine died. He tried to land in a
field but crashed. While recovering in a rehabilitation center in California, Yoshi filed suit there against the Atlanta
Airport and the owners of the airplane, alleging that they were negligent in their maintenance.
123. Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. Yoshi may obtain personal jurisdiction over the Atlanta Airport by having the court seize
a bank account the airport holds in California.
a. True
b. False
124. Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. Only Yoshi has the ability to remove the case he brought in a California state court to a
federal court.
a. True
b. False
125. Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. A court in which Yoshi's case may be brought and tried to a conclusion is said to have
original jurisdiction over the case.
a. True
b. False
126. Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. If Yoshi's case was tried in federal court in California and the issue of substantive law
was whether or not a contract existed between Yoshi and the airplane owner, the court would apply the law of
Georgia.
a. True
b. False
127. Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. If Yoshi wants to sue the Atlanta Airport in California he will most likely have to use a
long-leg statute to obtain personal jurisdiction.
a. True
b. False
128. Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. Because of the size of his alleged damages and the nature of the case, Yoshi could, if he
wished, sue the defendants in small claims court.
a. True
b. False
129. Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. If Yoshi's case were removed to federal court, the federal court would have to apply
conflict-of-law rules to determine what law to apply to the dispute.
a. True
b. False
130. Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. If Yoshi's case was tried in federal court in California, and the substantive issue of law
involved was liability for the injuries arising from Yoshi's crash, the court would apply the common law of
California.
a. True
b. False
