Civ Pro II Outline - Civ Pro II Outline I Select-a-court a...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Civ Pro II Outline I. Select-a-court a. PJ i. General 1. contacts systematic 2. service of process ii. Specific 1. minimum contacts 2. occurrence b. SMJ i. Federal Question § 1331 ii. 1332 iii. 1367- supplemental jurisdiction iv. 1441(c)- removal c. Venue i. 1391 ii. 1404 iii. 1406 iv. Forum Non Convience v. Choice of Law 1. Erie Doctrine – Federal court; non federal question claims (1332, 1367, 1441(c)) a. State substantive law applies i. Klaxon- forum state’s horizontal choice of law rules b. Procedural law conflicts – Federal procedural law vs. state procedural law i. FRCP, FRAP, 28 USC “on point” – apply it! (consider state policy when applying federal law ii. Twin Aims of Erie 1. Discourage forum shopping 2. Avoid Inequitable Administration of Law 3. Byrd Balancing a. Federal interest vs. state interest b. Is the state practice “bound up w/ the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties? c. Would its application determine the outcome of the case
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
d. Are there “affirmative countervailing considerations of federal judicial administration present? 2. The selection of procedural law sometimes will determine the outcome 3. Erie Doctrine – Vertical a. Will Federal courts use their law or look “down” and use state law b. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins i. Overruled Swift v. Tyson ii. There is no federal GENERAL common law. iii. Rules of Decision Act Apply state substantive law in federal court on diversity jurisdiction (also supplemental and 1441c). Applies to all state law cases in federal court iv. The law of the state where you are governs your conduct – look to state’s horizontal choice of law rule 1. Lex Loci Delicti- requires you to apply the laws of the state where the tort occurred. (K- where the K is formed or where performance was to occur) v. Federal courts entertaining state law claims act much like state courts vi. Twin aims of Erie 1. Discourage forum shopping 2. Avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws (will we know how to carry on our daily affairs?) c. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York i. Outcome determinative 1. If conflict btwn state procedural law and federal procedural law is outcome determinative, use state law in federal court to get same outcome d. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative i. Is the procedural rule intertwined w/ substantive law? If yes- then apply state law.
Background image of page 2
ii. Byrd Balancing 1. Balance federal interest in applying federal law vs. the state interest in apply state law e. Procedural law i. When there is a FRCP “on point” federal court must apply FRCP b/c constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to promulgate the rules. ii. Federal procedural common law 1. Look at the twin aims of Erie 2. Is there a conflict that would cause someone to forum shop? f.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/01/2008 for the course CIV PRO Civ Pro II taught by Professor Cotter during the Summer '06 term at Cooley Law.

Page1 / 22

Civ Pro II Outline - Civ Pro II Outline I Select-a-court a...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online