Civil Procedure Outline

Civil Procedure Outline - Civil Procedure Outline A....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Civil Procedure Outline A. Statute of Limitations a. Defined – time period in which Π must file suit to avoid undue prejudice to Δ b. Notice must occur before statute runs; 3 ways this can happen i. Knew – either served or constructive notice 1. constructive notice is when a Δ finds out about a lawsuit before they are formally served ii. Should have known – facts before you that a reasonable person would have interpreted to know; qualifies as constructive notice iii. Deemed to know – judge says you know; example: if one spouse/member of a partnership knows, the other spouse/partners are deemed to know; does not qualify as constructive notice as a party doesn’t have to find out 1. Legal Notice – type of above; example: lost property list published in the paper; legally you are deemed to know about what was published even if you didn’t read it c. Nolph v. Scott i. Δ filed suit against Π after statute ran, as Δ only found out that Π was liable through discovery after the statute ran ii. Rule – party sued after the statute ran is loses even though they served a WO attorney as Δ didn’t have constructive notice; changed per FRCP 15 B. Joinder of Parties (“uniting of parties or claims in a single lawsuit” – Rule 20) a. Defined – when multiple Δs or Πs officially brought in to one suit in the interests of judicial economy; Πs like it b/c they look more credible i. court must have personal/SM jurisdiction over all Δs/claims b. When Joinder may Occur (3 part test, all must be satisfied) i. common question of law/fact that bears significant relationship to action ii. same transaction/occurrence or series of T/Os – hardest element to satisfy ; 2 tests used and analyze both for test (unless specified otherwise) 1. Logical Relationship -the claims must be logically related in any significant way a. claims must derive from the same set of underlying facts, even if the subset of facts relevant to each claim differs b. ask if it makes sense to try the claims together or if it would confuse the jury if tried together 2. Shared Evidence -evidence similar/same between cases a. narrower than logical relationship test iii. relief must be joint (when the Πs share a right), several (each individual sues for their own damages), or in the alternative (when Πs band together and claim that something is owed to one Π, but not the others) c. Apache County v. Superior Court i. Π hospital wanted to sue Δ county for not paying for different medical services rendered for several different indignant people ii. Rule – When the material facts of the case are dissimilar (i.e. medical treatment and indignancy status), and the only common thread is minor (that the people are classified by Π as indignant), joinder is not proper d. Alexander, et al., v. Fulton County Current as of 4/19/2011 Page 1 of 21
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
i. Πs sued Δ sheriff dept. for racial discrimination with regard to promotions ii. Rule – if the same question of fact is present (racial discrimination) and
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2011 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Many during the Spring '11 term at University of Louisville.

Page1 / 21

Civil Procedure Outline - Civil Procedure Outline A....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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