CHAPTER 3
COURT PROCEDURES
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
AT THE ENDS OF THE CASES
CASE 3.1—QUESTIONS (PAGE 56)
1A. Suppose that Cruz had misaddressed the envelope, but the summons had still reached Hayes and
Cruz could prove it. Would this have been sufficient to establish valid service? Explain. Evidence that a
mailed summons actually reached the individual to be served should be sufficient to establish valid
service, even if the envelope was misaddressed or some other circumstance indicated that the summons
might have gone astray. Thus, if Cruz were able to provide evidence that a corporate officer or an agent
for service of process actually received a summons, this should have been sufficient to establish
compliance with the requirements for service of process, regardless of the address on the envelope.
2A. Should a plaintiff be required to serve a defendant with a summons and a copy of a complaint
more than once? Why or why not? More than one service is not more likely to receive a response.
CASE 3.2—QUESTION (PAGE 59)
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION
Collier contended that there was a “serious question” as to whether he would even need experts to
prove his medical malpractice claim. Is it fair to Collier not to let the trial proceed, even though the lack
of expert testimony might have made it difficult—if not impossible—for him to win the case? Explain.
CASE 3.3—QUESTIONS (PAGE 65)
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION
Hearsay is literally what a witness says he or she heard another person say. What makes the
admissibility of such evidence potentially unethical? Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in a suit when it
is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted because it has dubious trustworthiness. When a
witness repeats what another person has said, there is a reasonable likelihood that that he or she might
misinterpret the statements. There is no opportunity to verify the accuracy of the statements because
the declarant is not present in court to be questioned. These features make the use of hearsay
potentially unethical.
THE E-COMMERCE DIMENSION
In this case, the plaintiff offered as evidence the printouts of Web pages that he claimed once appeared
on others’ Web sites. What makes such evidence questionable until proven accurate? As stated by
CASE 3.4—QUESTIONS (PAGE 69)
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION
The appellate court noted in this case that the district court’s decision—which granted benefits to
Evans—may arguably have been a better decision under these facts. If the court believes the district
court’s conclusion was right, then why did it reverse the decision? What does this tell you about the
standards for review that judges use? This ruling indicates, among other things, that standards of
review, although they “cannot be imprisoned within any form of words,” are not arbitrary. There is a
certain method in their interpretation and clear limits to their application.
CHAPTER 3: COURT PROCEDURES 17
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT?
Suppose that it was clear from the evidence on record that the ERISA administrator had not been careful
and consistent and had rejected Evans’s claim merely because of a personal dislike for Evans. How might
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. Contingency fee
If the Metzgars lose, the lawyer does not receive pay for work provided. If they win a verdict in court or
receive a settlement, the lawyer takes a percentage of that, usually around 30 percent.
2A. Service of process
A copy would be handed to a company representative by a process server or possibly by mail.
3A. Request for summary judgment
4A. Options after the verdict
The plaintiffs may make a motion for a judgment n.o.v. and, if that is unsuccessful, may appeal the
decision reached at trial to the court of appeals.
ANSWER TO DEBATE THIS QUESTION IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE AT THE END OF THE
CHAPTER
Some consumer advocates argue that high attorney contingency fees—sometimes reaching 40
percent—unfairly deprive winning plaintiffs of too much of their awards. Should the government put a
cap on contingency fees at, say 20 percent? Why or why not? In theory and in practice, poorer plaintiffs
18 UNIT ONE: THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS
government capped such fees at a maximum percents, say 20 percent, then winning plaintiffs would
keep the lion’s share of their awards. This would be fairer.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
3-1A. Discovery
(Chapter 3—Pages 58–61)
Under the work-product rule, attorneys are allowed to protect information that they have gathered as a
3-2A. QUESTION WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Motions
(a) After all of the pleadings (the complaint, answer, and any counterclaim and reply) have been
filed, either party can file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. This may happen because it is clear
from just the pleadings that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. This motion is also
appropriate when all the parties agree on the facts, and the only question remaining is how the law
insufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact. These motions are rarely granted at this stage of a trial. At
CHAPTER 3: COURT PROCEDURES 19
the end of the defendant’s case, the parties have another opportunity to move for a directed verdict.
This time, either party can seek the motion. The motion will be granted only if there is no reasonable
way to find for the party against whom the motion is made. In other words, if, after the defense’s case
judge’s ruling. These motions can be made before or during a trial.
(d) If a losing party has previously moved for a directed verdict, that party can make a motion for
a judgment n.o.v. (notwithstanding the verdict) after the jury issues its verdict. The standards for
granting a judgment n.o.v. are the same as those for granting a motion to dismiss a case or a motion for
a directed verdict. Essentially, the losing party argues that even if the evidence is viewed in the light
3-3A. Motion for a new trial
(Chapter 3—Page 66)
The conduct of the trial judge was inappropriate and potentially prejudicial, and the case should be re–
3-4A. Discovery
(Chapter 3—Pages 58–61)
Without any protections in place to inhibit RoadTrac’s use of the information, ATC could be irreparably
3-5A. Service of process
(Chapter 3—Pages 52–56)
As you read in the chapter, a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit unless the
defendant is formally notified of the suit, which is called service of process. The issue here is whether
3-6A. CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Appellate review
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling. In reviewing a trial
court’s decisions, said the appellate court, “we will not set aside findings of fact * * * unless they are
clearly erroneous. However, the district court’s interpretation and construction of a contract is a matter
3-7A. Discovery
(Chapter 3—Pages 58–61)
A trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny the requests of the parties that appear before it. In
this case, the court should deny the plaintiff’s request to lift the protective order. The court granted her
3-8A. Jury misconduct
(Chapter 3—Pages 61 & 66)
The Missouri high court reversed the trial court and remanded the case. The fact that the bias was not
3-9A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Service of process
(a) One reason for the strict construction and application of such procedural requirements as
the details imposed on service of process is the seriousness and finality of legal proceedings. Unlike
many other events that offer “second chances” or can otherwise be undone, the result of a legal
proceeding such as a trial is almost always final.
was not served in strict compliance with the rules governing service of process. . . . In the absence of an
appearance by the defendant in question, there must be an affirmative showing of due service of
process, independent of the recitations in the default judgment.”
(b) The state intermediate appellate court stated that “[i]t is the responsibility of the party
requesting service, not the process server, to see that service is properly accomplished.” The court also
was defective. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting a default judgment against Harvestons.” The
appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case for further
proceedings.
The dissent concluded, however, that “the sufficiency of the return of citation showing service on
the Commissioner is immaterial” here. “[T]he default judgment record in this case contains a certified
3-10A. SPECIAL CASE ANALYSIS: Proper service
Case No. 3.1
Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc.
California Court of Appeal,
Fourth District, Division 1, 2007.
146 Cal.App.4th 488,
52 Cal.Rptr.3d 862.
(a) Issue: On what preliminary step to litigation does the issue in this case focus? Service of
process was the preliminary step to litigation at the heart of the dispute in this case.
(b) Rule of Law: What are the chief requirements for fulfilling the pretrial procedure at the
center of the dispute in this case? The chief requirements for satisfactory service of process are that a
summons and a copy of a complaint be delivered to the proper party. Here, the defendant was a
corporation and the service was addressed to the corporation’s president. In compliance with state law,
the documents were sent via first-class mail, return receipt requested. Under an applicable state statute,
service is proper if the documents are delivered to “a person authorized by the corporation to receive
service.”
CHAPTER 3: COURT PROCEDURES 23
(d) Conclusion: Did the court conclude that the plaintiff had met all of the requirements for a
favorable judgment in this case? If not, why not? Yes, in this case the state intermediate appellate court