Civil Procedure I
Archived Posts from this Category
Civil Procedure I #38: Supplemental Jurisdiction Amount in Controversy Requirements Friday, Jan 6 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 7:30 pm
US Code 1367 codified Owen, which required diversity to be satisfied by supplemental parties in federal court solely on diversity. But what if the supplemental parties are diverse, but fail to meet the amount in controversy requirements? The Supreme Court will answer that question in this, our final Civil Procedure I episode.
Rosario Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc.
Civil Procedure I #37: Impleader Friday, Jan 6 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 7:27 pm
As we have seen in supplemental jurisdiction and joinder, the courts desire to efficiently decide multiple cases by grouping them together. Impleader will allow a defendant to bring in a party that said defendant claims will be liable for all or part of the amount won by the plaintiff.
Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp.
Augentini v. Cappenllini v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity
Civil Procedure I #36: Joinder Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:29 pm
There will often be multiple potential plaintiffs, defendants, or causes of actions arising from any given controversy. Joinder allows the courts to adjudicate all of these claims at once, in order to promote efficiency. However, not all claims or parties can be joined.
Rule 18
Rule 20
Kedra v. City of Philadelphia
Insolia v. Phillip Morris, Inc.
Civil Procedure I #35: Counter-Claims Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:28 pm
Why should the plaintiff have a monopoly on accusations? Our civil system allows a defendant to level their own accusations against the plaintiff as a counter-claim.
Rule 13
Wigglesworth v. Teamsters Local Union No. 592
Civil Procedure I #34: Amending the Pleadings Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:26 pm
Not every pleading (be it complaint, answer, or otherwise) is perfect. Sometimes a party will want to amend their pleading. As with everything else, we have rules that control these amendments.
Rule 15
David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
Swartz v. Gold Dust Casino, Inc.
Civil Procedure I #33: The Defendant Responds Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:24 pm
The plaintiff is not the only one who gets to send paperwork flying in a civil dispute. A defendant has a chance to file an answer to the complaint. However, there a number of rules that govern the answer, which we will discuss in this episode.
Rule 8
Rule 12
David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
Civil Procedure I #32: Rule 11 Sanctions Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:07 am
Rule 11 gives us the fun and frolic of sanctions. When can a lawyer or a client get hit with monetary penalties for their conduct? Is unfamiliarity with a legal subject sanctionable? We’ll get answers from a case revolving around one of my favorite subjects: copyright.
Rule 11
Zuk v. Eastern Penn. Psychiatric Institute of the Medical College of Penn.
Standard Podcast [14:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground on "Law-Related Things That Suck: Too Few Frivolous Lawsuits" [3:20m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadCivil Procedure I #31: Heightened Pleadings II Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:05 am
The Supreme Court weighs in with their opinion of heightened pleadings. Specifically, a dim view is taken, striking many heightened pleading requirements in a pair of cases
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, NA
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics and Coordination Unit
Civil Procedure I #30: Heightened Pleadings I Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:04 am
In some cases, the simple notice pleading of Rule 8 is not enough. Rather, a plaintiff must plead with “particularity.” When does this heightened requirement kick in, and what does it mean? We’ll attempt to answer those questions.
Rule 9
Ross v. A.H. Robins Co.
Cash Energy, Inc. V. Weimer
Civil Procedure I #29: Pleadings Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:03 am
All good lawsuits start with a great pleading. Or at least, a pleading that won’t get you dismissed out of court. We’ll look at the history of pleadings, and the current requirements for a standard civil pleading.
Rule 8
Rule 12
Conley v. Gibson
Mitchell v. Archibald & Kendall, Inc.