978-0077733711 Chapter 2 Solution Manual

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Chapter 02 – The Resolution of Private Disputes

V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES:

1. No. A trial judge’s decision not to admit evidence is legal in nature, because it applies the law

2. No. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) overrides a state

law that vests initial adjudicatory authority in a state administrative agency. The national

3. No. The Illinois Court of Appeals held that the Oklahoma defendants were subject to the in

personam jurisdiction of the Illinois court. The case, which centered around false statements

allegedly posted by the defendants in an Internet chat room, was an appropriate one for

4. The Ruizes were entitled to the requested documents and materials. The Supreme Court of

Florida held that Allstate was required to produce its claim file for the plaintiffs in their bad-

faith denial of coverage case against the insurer. The insurer’s claim file was likely to be the

5. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err in

overruling the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce certain requested

documents and records. The court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the request was

overly broad and unduly burdensome. The court also held that the lower court did not err

6. On the ground that the inadmissible evidence and improper conduct tainted the proceedings,

Tyson can: (1) move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (also called a judgment as a

2-1

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 02 – The Resolution of Private Disputes

matter of law in federal court); (2) move for a new trial; and/or (3) move for a remittitur in

conjunction with a motion for new trial. The trial judge concluded that the $185,000 in

compensatory damages “b[ore] no reasonable relation to evidence presented about damages

plaintiff suffered as a direct result of defendant’s conduct” and that the $800,000 in punitive

7. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled that the lower court was wrong, and that the

8. The federal district court held that Abbott improperly removed Lewis’s claim from state court

to federal court. Therefore, the federal court remanded the case to state court. Concurrent

jurisdiction was lacking–meaning that the state court case was not one that could properly

have been pursued in federal court–because Lewis’s claim did not present a federal question

and because the requirements of diversity jurisdiction were not satisfied. Although the

2-2

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.