CHAPTER03_COURTS - COURTS SOURCES OF LAW LITIGATION CHAPTER...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: COURTS SOURCES OF LAW LITIGATION CHAPTER 3 SOURCES OF THE LAW Constitutions U.S. Constitution State constitutions Legislative Legislative act to establish expected behavior Statutes, ordinance Administrative Law Regulations and rules of administrative agencies; e.g. Federal Register; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Common Law and Equity Court made law evolution of private law system. SOURCES OF THE LAW--CONT. Common Law Law deriving from case decisions no statutory guides English legal system Most significant contribution of English law to U.S. system. Concept of precedent Contracts, torts, and property Still important today COURTS s FEDERALIST SYSTEM: CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT COURT SYSTEMS s STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS TRIAL COURTS INTERMEDIATE LEVEL APPEALS COURT FINAL APPEAL (SUPREME) TYPES OF COURTS s TRIAL COURT: COURT OF RECORD FUNCTION: FIND FACTS AND APPLY LAW JURY---TRIER OF FACT JUDGE-- MEDIATOR, REFEREE, SOURCE OF LAW, ULTIMATE POWER TYPES OF COURTS (CONT.) s INTERMEDIATE LEVEL APPEALS FIRST LEVEL OF REVIEW LOWER COURT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS OF LAW ONLY AFFIRM, REVERSE, OR REMAND WRITTEN OPINIONS EXPLAIN, DEFINE, CREATE LAW SUPREME COURTS s FINAL WORD ON MATTER FOR WHICH IT IS THE FINAL ARBITER STATE COURT: STATE LAW AND STATE CONSTITUTION U.S. SUPREME COURT: FEDERAL LAW AND ALL MATTERS INVOLVING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SUPREME COURT CASES s s JUDICIAL REVIEW MARBURY V. MADISON (1803) JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT HEARING APPEAL REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE WRIT OF CERTIORI DISCRETIONARY s U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER s IMPORTANT FEDERAL LAW-- INTERPRETATION OR RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT BETWEEN CIRCUITS JURISDICTION s DEFINED :POWER OF COURT TO HEAR AND DECIDE AN ISSUE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: POWER OF COURT TO HEAR A PARTICULAR CASE STATE COURT s s STATUTORILY DEFINED (E.G.. PROBATE, DOMESTIC RELATIONS, LANDLORD-TENANT) AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY (OHIO E.G.) BETWEEN $0 - $10,000: MUNICIPAL COURT BETWEEN $0 AND INFINITY: COMMON PLEAS JURISDICTION (cont.) s SUBJECT MATTER (cont.) FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION s FEDERAL QUESTION FEDERAL STATUTE s DIVERSITY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND ALL DEFENDANTS FROM DIFFERENT STATES AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $75,000 EXAMPLE OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION s WHILE TRAVELLING ON THE OHIO TURNPIKE, DAVE, A RESIDENT OF AKRON, OHIO WAS INVOLVED IN A MULTI-VEHICLE AUTO ACCIDENT. DAVE WAS REAR-ENDED BY THE CAR DIRECTLY BEHIND HIM WHICH WAS STRUCK BY THE CAR BEHIND IT, ETC.. FOR ABOUT FIVE CARS BACK. DIVERSITY COINTINUED s THE FIRST CAR TO STRIKE DAVE WAS FROM PENNSYLVANIA; THE SECOND FROM NEW YORK; THE THIRD FROM INDIANA; AND THE FOURTH FROM OHIO DIVERSITY (cont.) DAVE SUFFERED NUMEROUS INJURIES AND INCURRED MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN MEDICAL DAMAGES. HIS LAWYER WANTS TO SUE ALL THE PEOPLE DRIVING CARS IN THE ACCIDENT FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,000,000 s CAN HE SUE IN FEDERAL COURT? s DIVERSITY (cont.) Example 1 s OHIO PLAINTIFF s s s s PA. DEFENDANT NEW YORK DEFENDANT INDIANA DEFENDANT OHIO DEFENDANT DIVERSITY (cont.) Example 2 s OHIO PLAINTIFF s s s PA. DEFENDANT NEW YORK DEFENDANT INDIANA DEFENDANT PERSONAL JURISDICTION s ABILITY OF COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OVER THE PARTIES IN THE CASE PLAINTIFF ALWAYS SUBMITS TO POWER OF COURT WHERE SUIT FILED DEFENDANT SUBJECT TO COURT'S JURISDICTION ONLY IF RULES MET PERSONAL JURISDICTION (cont.) s STATE COURT PERSONAL JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC LIMIT OF STATE LONG ARM STATUTE "Active" vs. "Passive" websites (Zippo Mfg v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997)). s FEDERAL COURT PERSONAL JURISDICTION U.S BOUNDARIES TREATIES ANATOMY OF A TRIAL s INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION ELEMENTS THAT MUST BE PROVED COLLECTIBLE DEFENDANT COST VERSUS PRINCIPLE TIME FRUSTRATION NON-LEGAL REMEDY/ADR PRETRIAL s INITIATION OF LAW SUIT PLEADINGS COMPLAINT s s s NOTICE PLEADING V. CODE PLEADING SERVICE OF PROCESS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT SUMMONS ANSWER s s RESPONSE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES DEFAULT JUDGMENT PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS s DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE METHODS DEPOSITION INTERROGATORY REQUEST FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE NO NEED FOR TRIAL TO DETERMINE FACTS s PRETRIAL CONFERENCE PLAN, REVIEW ISSUES, NARROW ISSUES FOR TRIAL, ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT TRIAL PROCESS s s s s VOIR DIRE GOAL: "UNBIASED" JURY CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE PEREMPTORY OPENING STATEMENT NO ARGUING THE CASE PLAINTIFF'S CASE IN CHIEF BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD EVIDENCE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT TRIAL PROCESS (cont) s DEFENDANT'S CASE IN CHIEF BURDEN OF PROOF AND BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT CLOSING ARGUMENTS s JURY INSTRUCTIONS s VERDICT s POST TRIAL MOTIONS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT (JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VERDICTO) JNOV s MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL s POST TRIAL s s s APPEAL WHEN IS THE CASE FINALLY OVER? POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES EXECUTION ON JUDGMENT JUDGMENT LIEN GARNISHMENT OF WAGES OF PROPERTY FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE U.S.. CONSTITUTION FROM THE BALCONY Understand risks, costs, and benefits of the trial system. s Fight or flight s ADR? Business strategies s Court system as business opportunity s ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/28/2009 for the course CBA 6400 taught by Professor Red during the Three '09 term at University of Adelaide.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online