This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Civil Procedure Outline Professor Ward Fall 1998 Bill Jeberg & BarBri JUSTICIABILITY I ARTICLE III POWERS A) JURISDICTION & COMPETANCE 1) Jurisdiction- Adjudicatory authority 2) Competance- Amount of power given by virtue of statute B) STANDING- who should involved, is there an injury to (if wife gets injured, husband can't sue) Has been injured? (Raines v. Byrd- line item veto, failed to establish personal injury) C) POLITICAL QUESTION- court should not resolve political questions ( Cudahy v. Quirk- & seemed to use court as a political "soapbox" for floride in H2O) D) RIPENESS- Is it too early to raise an issue, is it ready for jurisdiction E) MOOTNESS- Is it too late to hear case, the matter has been resolved (Arizonians v. Arizona- she quit and thus did not have an interest; Defunis v. Odegard- had been through law school) 1) Federal courts are w/out power to decide questions that cannot effect the rights of litigants in the case before them Exception- cases likely to be repeated (pregnant women in abortion cases) PERSONAL JURISDICTION I GENERALLY A) WHAT IT DEALS WITH 1) Where the can sue the 2) All courts need it both state and federal B) MUST HAVE POWER OVER 1) himself or 2) 's property C) 3 TYPES 1) In personam- court has power over himself 2) & 3) In rem & quasi in rem- court has power over property D) DUE PROCESS CLAUSE 1) Tells the courts how far they can go 2) Also need a statute which allows it- always check the state statute before the constitutional analysis II IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION A) TYPES OF JURISDICTION 1) General- can sue for claim which arose anywhere 2) Specific- Claim arises in the particular forum 1 B) THE DUE PROCESS TEST- The Constitutional side of it 1) The Cases a) Pennoyer v. Neff- a state has jurisdiction over things in it's boundaries. Established 4 basis Presence- was present when served with process- gives general jurisdiction 's agent is served Domicile- if is domiciled there, there is general jurisdiction Consent- can consent to jurisdiction, either implicitly or expressly Doing business Not from Penoyer)- Used for presence over corporations b) Hess v. Pawloski- jurisdiction pursuant to non-resident motorist statutes This leads to implied consent to the jurisdiction and consent to name the DMV your agent for process c) International Shoe v. Washington- establishes the new doctrinal test Jurisdiction is OK if has minimum contacts w/ the forum AND Exercise of jurisdiction does not offend fair play and justice This is a flexible test d) McGee v. International Life Ins.- Texas corp has 1 contract w/ California- only contact- satisfies jurisdiction: 3 factors solicited business from California Relatedness between contact w/forum and cause of action- does claim arise from the contacts State's interest e) Hanson v. Denckla- Moves from Delaware to Florida- can Delaware bank be sued in Florida- NO-...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/15/2008 for the course LAW 1000 taught by Professor Minda during the Fall '06 term at St. Johns Duplicate.
- Fall '06
- The Land