Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 02 - The Resolution of Private Disputes
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
I. OBJECTIVES:
student should:
A. Be familiar with the various kinds of state and federal courts and the common bases of their
trial and appellate jurisdiction;
C. Have knowledge of the significant forms of alternative dispute resolution and their advantages
and disadvantages.
for the chapter’s coverage.
II. ANSWERS TO INTRODUCTORY PROBLEM:
A. Wilson clearly may pursue her case in New Jersey, where the defendant corporation’s
principal offices are located. Depending upon how the applicable long-arm statute is worded
part of a federal court in the Illinois district) Again, see the chapter’s discussion of in
jurisdiction (one of the forms of subject matter jurisdiction in federal court) would be satisfied.
discussed above). See the chapter’s discussion of concurrent jurisdiction and the power of
removal.
procedure (see text, pp. 39-46).
ethical issues at pp. 41-43.
Chapter 02 - The Resolution of Private Disputes
2-2
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
III. SUGGESTIONS FOR LECTURE PREPARATION:
A. State Courts and their Jurisdiction
1. This section's description of state courts themselves (as opposed to their jurisdiction)
Examples include the trial court's evidentiary rulings, and its rulings on the motions for
Problem #1.
2. With regard to state court jurisdiction:
a. Emphasize that this is based on the state's power. The various examples of state court
b. Emphasize that for state trial courts to have jurisdiction in a civil case, both subject-
courts.)
c. Discuss the role that long-arm statutes may play in allowing a state court to have in
personam jurisdiction over a non-resident. Mention that federal courts may rely on
d. Note that according to the typical long-arm statute, a non-resident defendant may be
subjected to suit in the forum state if he, she, or it has: done business in the forum
state; contracted to supply goods or services in the forum state; committed a tort
must be applied as a constitutional matter. As the text points out, the due process
arm statute does not contain a to-the-limit-of-due-process provision.
e. Abdouch v. Lopez (p. 30): The Supreme Court of Nebraska holds that the defendants,
a Massachusetts resident and his Massachusetts-based company, are not subject to the
Chapter 02 - The Resolution of Private Disputes
2-3
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Points for Discussion: Note the court's discussion of specific jurisdiction:
jurisdiction over a defendant in a case arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts
with the forum. Emphasize that such jurisdiction can be acquired by a court over a
single due process inquiry in which the "minimum contacts" issue becomes critical. Ask
the students why the court concluded that the defendants did not possess the requisite
minimum contacts with Nebraska. Ask about the court's discussion of the Zippo test for
whether a defendant's website will or may support a determination that a state's court has
determinative. Ask about what the court also considered important in determining
whether the defendants possessed the necessary minimum contacts: whether the
f. The Global Business Environment box at p. 33 deals with Daimler AG v. Bauman, a
2014 Supreme Court decision dealing with whether the U.S. District Court for the
g. For further examples of long-arm statute-related issues and due process concerns, see
Problems #3, #7, and #10.
h. Explain the difference between in personam jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction.
i. Although the text mentions it only in a footnote, you might want to discuss quasi-in-
rem or "attachment" jurisdiction, which (along with subject-matter jurisdiction) also
debt, but Y is outside the in personam jurisdiction of X's state. Suppose also that Z
owes Y a debt, and Z comes into X's state. X may get quasi in rem jurisdiction over Y
based.
Chapter 02 - The Resolution of Private Disputes
2-4
j. Be sure to distinguish jurisdiction from venue. Emphasize that a court may have
is assumed to exist.
k. Note the role that contractual forum selection clauses may play in determining matters
C. Federal Courts and their Jurisdiction
1. Briefly describe the various federal courts and their functions. Be sure to emphasize the
courts.
2. With regard to federal district court jurisdiction and venue:
a. Emphasize the elements necessary for diversity jurisdiction: (1) the case is between
dollar test. Such jurisdiction exists as to any claim that “arises under” federal law.
b. Point out that the traditional reason for diversity jurisdiction was the possibility of
c. Note that the rule regarding a corporation’s citizenship may sometimes have the effect
of limiting a plaintiff’s ability to rely on diversity jurisdiction. The Hertz case
d. Stress that diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction are forms of subject-
matter jurisdiction. In order to have the power to render a decision that is binding on
discussion.)
f. Consider using a simple example to illustrate the options potentially available to a
plaintiff who wants to sue an out-of-state defendant. (You might use the chapter’s
defendant’s home state; or (4) sue the defendant in a federal court in the defendant’s
Chapter 02 - The Resolution of Private Disputes
2-5
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
home district. (Options #2 and #4 would be available only if the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.)
“nerve center” is located. Applying the nerve center test to the facts, the Court
concludes that the plaintiff and the defendant were citizens of different states, that
federal court.
Points for Discussion: Begin by asking when the power of removal applies and about
strategic issues associated with deciding whether to exercise it when it does apply.
remove the case to federal court.) What principal-place-of-business test does the
Court adopt instead? (Nerve center test.) What’s the nerve center? (Where the big
corporate decision are made—usually the corporate headquarters.) Why that test?
case may be brought only in a judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to
the case occurred, or the property to which the case relates is located; or (3) the
defendants are subject to in personam jurisdiction, if there is no other district in which
jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship. Sometimes, however,
determining which state's substantive law to apply is a problem, especially in cases
issues.
Chapter 02 - The Resolution of Private Disputes
2-6
3. Note that the Supreme Court's mandatory "appeal" jurisdiction no longer exists, and that
directed to it.
D. Civil Procedure
2. You should note that the adversary system is at work throughout the procedural steps to be
3. Emphasize that jurisdiction and adequacy of service of process are separate questions.
instances. One possible example is where a state court has in rem jurisdiction over
domicile can be located.
4. Discuss the pleadings and distinguish among the complaint, answer, counterclaim, and
5. Emphasize that a demurrer attacks the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint and
complaint.
6. The text contains an extensive discussion of discovery. Comment on discovery’s
purposes, usefulness, and broad scope in civil cases. Note, also, that discovery is available
person knows, to pin that person down to a particular story, to see what sort of witness
that person would be, etc.). Note, also, the ways in which depositions may be used at
this.
b. Interrogatories and requests for admission. Note their similarities and differences.
Explain the obligation to respond, under oath, within the appropriate time period.
