LEB.pp.2 (spg 10) - Chapter 2 Court Systems Organization of...

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: Chapter 2 Court Systems Organization of State Courts in Texas Texas Creation: Texas constitution, legislature Structure: Tiered system Tiered * Local trial courts: least serious cases Local least * County trial courts: more significant County more cases cases * District courts: primary trial courts District primary Organization of State Courts in Texas Texas Structure: Tiered System * Courts of Appeals: intermediate level of Courts Appeals intermediate appeal appeal 14 courts; 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin Austin * Supreme Court of Texas: highest level Supreme highest of appeal for civil cases civil * Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: Criminal highest level of appeal for criminal highest criminal cases cases Organization of Federal Courts Organization Creation: U.S. Constitution, U.S. Congress Congress U.S. Structure: Tiered System Supreme Court U.S. Courts of Appeals U.S. District Courts Organization of Federal Courts Organization U.S. District Courts: Trial courts – 94 federal judicial districts – Each district has a U.S. District Court – 4 jjudicial districts in Texas udicial Texas – Austin in Western District of Texas Organization of Federal Courts Organization U.S. Courts of Appeals: iintermediate level ntermediate of appeal of – 13 federal judicial circuits – Each circuit has a U.S. Court of Appeals – Texas included in 5th Circuit Texas 5th Organization of Federal Courts Organization U.S. Supreme Court: highest level of highest appeal appeal – Panel of 9 justices – Petition for “writ of certiorari” “Rule of 4” U.S. Court of Appeals Highest State court (Question of Federal law) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Court’s power to resolve this type of dispute this – Negligence claim – Patent infringement claim – Breach of contract, etc. etc. Personal Jurisdiction Personal Court’s power to render enforceable judgment against D judgment – Nonresident D – Fairness & justice served In Rem Jurisdiction In Court’s power to render enforceable judgment concerning disposition of property property – Quiet Title – Foreclosure Federal Question Federal a. P’s claim arises under Federal law a. P’s – P’s “pendent/ancillary” claims P’s b. No money requirement No Diversity of Citizenship Diversity a. Ps & Ds from different States a. Ps No P from the same State as any D b. Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 b. Diversity of Citizenship Diversity Note: (1) Citizenship of individual Note: individual U.S. citizenship plus residency U.S. (2) Citizenship of corporation corporation State of incorporation and State of corporate headquarters corporate (3) Citizenship of partnership (3) partnership Citizenship of every partner Citizenship Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Why did Grupo move to dismiss? Why – No diversity of citizenship between P&D at time lawsuit was filed at Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grupo Should court recognize judgment even though Should no diversity at time lawsuit filed (waste of time to start case all over again)? – No. Party’s post-filing change in citizenship resulting Party’s in complete diversity does not cure lack of diversity at not time of filing time – Case remanded to trial court for entry of order Case remanded dismissing case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction dismissing State Courts “General Jurisdiction” – District Courts “Limited Jurisdiction” – JP, Municipal, Constitutional Courts, … State Courts State “Concurrent Jurisdiction” – State courts share power with Federal courts State share (Diversity of Citizenship cases & variety of Federal Question cases: P can sue in Federal court or State court) or – D’s right to remove case from State to Federal D’s remove court court State Courts State “Concurrent Jurisdiction” – Exceptions: (a) Bankruptcy (b) Patents (b) (c) Federal crimes (d) Antitrust (d) (e) Admiralty (e) (f) Suits against U.S. (g) Other specified federal statutes Personal Jurisdiction Personal Due Process – Fairness & Substantial Justice Fairness Traditional Methods Traditional 1. Sue in D’s Home State (can serve D 1. there) there) 2. Serve D in Forum State (where D is 2. sued) sued) 3. D Consents 3. a. Appearance (D files certain papers a. Personal Jurisdiction Personal Forum Selection Clause – Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute Should suit be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction? personal – Yes, forum selection clause is Yes, enforceable because it is reasonable enforceable reasonable Personal Jurisdiction Personal Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute – Carnival avoids having to defend numerous Carnival lawsuits – Ticket prices stay low – Certainty ex ante (before the fact) Certainty ex – Shutes on notice (Carnival’s principal place of Shutes business in FLA) business Personal Jurisdiction Personal What if nonresident D is smart enough not What not to step foot in forum State and not to file not papers with court? papers – Alternate Method 1. “Long Arm” Statute – Contacts Contacts – Fairness & Substantial Justice Fairness Minimum Contacts Minimum Purposeful Availment Intentional, deliberate, affirmative Intentional deliberate affirmative conduct (random, fortuitous contacts not enough) enough) * Take advantage of business Take opportunities in forum - Distributor/Sales Agent in forum - Ads/Marketing aimed at forum - Negotiations = Course of Dealing with forum General Personal Jurisdiction “Continuous and Systematic” Contacts * Substantial ongoing contacts, approximating a physical presence in forum Helicopteros v. Hall Helicopteros Does Texas court have personal jurisdiction over Helicopteros? – “General” jjurisdiction case. Cause of action (wrongful urisdiction death) arose from events outside forum State of events Texas (negligent operation of helicopter in Peru). Texas – Buying a few helicopters in Texas and making related Buying trips does not constitute “continuous and systematic not continuous contacts” with the State. contacts with – Texas court does not have personal jurisdiction over Texas not Helicopteros. Helicopteros. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson Woodson Are the Audi retailer and wholesaler correct Are (Oklahoma court does not have personal not jurisdiction over them)? jurisdiction – “General” jjurisdiction case. Cause of action (product urisdiction liability) arose from events outside forum State of events Oklahoma (design defect in N.Y.). Oklahoma – N.Y. retailer and wholesaler had no contacts, ties, or N.Y. no ties, relations with Oklahoma (fortuitous circumstance that relations accident occurred there). accident – Oklahoma court does not have personal jurisdiction Oklahoma not over retailer or wholesaler. Gerflor v. Consolidated Gerflor Does a Texas court have personal jurisdiction over Gerflor? jurisdiction – “General” jjurisdiction case. Cause of action urisdiction (breach of contract) presumably arose in France, outside forum State of Texas. outside – Fifteen years of regularly shipping products to regularly Texas (and suing in Texas) qualifies as “continuous and systematic” contacts. – Texas court has personal jurisdiction. Texas has WNS v. Farrow WNS Should Ds’ motion to dismiss be granted? – “Specific” jjurisdiction case. Cause of action (fraud) urisdiction arose out of Ds’ intentional acts in forum State of Ds’ Texas (contract negotiations in Houston). Texas – Ds purposefully traveled to Texas, conducting Ds purposefully negotiations and partially performing agreement there. Reasonable to sue D in Texas based on State’s Reasonable significant interest in remedying injuries occurring within its borders. within – Ds’ motion should be denied. Ds’ denied Burnham v. Superior Court Burnham Should husband’s motion to dismiss be Should granted? granted? – No. Although no long arm jurisdiction here, No. remember that service of process on husband service while in forum State is valid method of while obtaining personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal court’s long arm jurisdiction if: Claim arises under federal law – D beyond jurisdictional reach of State courts, beyond and and – D has sufficient contacts with U.S. as a whole has U.S. Internet & Long Arm Jurisdiction Internet Evolving Area: 2 Approaches Approach # 1: Three-Tier Analysis ii. Knowing & Repeated Transmission of . Knowing Files Files Long Arm Jurisdiction Exists (iinteractive nteractive communication) ii. Limited to Advertisements Advertisements No Long Arm Jurisdiction (passive communication) No Internet & Long Arm Jurisdiction Internet Evolving Area: 2 Approaches Approach # 1: Three-Tier Analysis iiii. Able to Exchange Info with Host ii. Computer Computer Case-by-Case Decision (look at interactivity & Case-by-Case interactivity commercial nature of info exchange) commercial Internet & Long Arm Jurisdiction Internet Approach # 2: Aimed Effects Analysis i. D purposefully aimed actions at purposefully forum State * Mere foreseeability of impact not foreseeability not enough to qualify as purposeful and ii. Harmful effect of D’s actions in Harmful forum State Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Schwarzenegger Assigned to the following students to brief Assigned and present in class on Thursday, 1/27: and (1) John Beam (2) Catherine Hadjiloizou (3) Francisco Loredo (3) (4) Rachel Rubin Deutsche v. Montana Board Deutsche Yes. By text message, Montana Yes. text Montana “knowingly projected itself into N.Y. to take advantage of its capital markets.” N.Y. court has personal jurisdiction over personal Montana. ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online