Civil Procedure I
Archived Posts from this Category
Civil Procedure I #28: Erie Wrap-Up Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:01 am
We will finally attempt to bring closure to our introductory survey of Erie. We will also look at one final case under Erie, dealing with the question of sanctions for appealing a decision.
Burlington Northern RR Co. v. Woods
Civil Procedure I #27: Byrd and Hanna Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:56 am
York gets more major tweaking with two United States Supreme Court decisions. We’ll see outcome-determinative receive some balancing, as well as a return to the initial policies underlying Erie.
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hanna v. Plumer
Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co.
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
Civil Procedure I #26: Interpreting Erie Monday, Nov 7 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:25 am
We will now start, over the course of several episodes, understanding how Erie has been interpreted. The first distinction to be made is between substantive law and procedural law.
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.
Guaranty Trust of New York v. York
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
Civil Procedure I #25: The Erie Doctrine Monday, Nov 7 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:20 am
What exactly is meant by the “laws of the several states”? Does it include the judge-made common law? Two different cases give us two different decisions. This episode will begin our discussion of what substantive law controls when a federal case is heard under diversity jurisdiction.
Swift v. Tyson
Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins
Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab Co.
Civil Procedure I #24: Removal Monday, Nov 7 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:15 am
Just because a suit is filed in state court doesn’t mean it’s going to stay there. A diverse defendant (or one who has an acceptable federal question) can remove to federal court if she so chooses. We’ll get an overview of removal in this episode.
Civil Procedure I #23: Pendant / Supplemental Jurisdiction Monday, Oct 31 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:26 pm
Now that we’ve determined that the main case belongs in federal court, what do we do with non-federal cases that spring about from the same set of facts? Must we have additional separate (and costly!) trials, or can we consolidate? Additionally, what of additional defendants that are discovered at a later date? When can we attach them to the complaint, even if they would not be normally reachable through federal court?
Mine Workers v. Gibbs
Rice v. Harvard College (no link available)
Aldinger v. Howard
Finley v. United States
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
US Code Title 28, Section 1367
Civil Procedure I #22: Federal Question Wrap-Up Monday, Oct 31 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:18 pm
We finally wrap-up our introductory definition of a “federal question.” We will look at the general rule for whether a case may be heard in state or federal court (American Well Works: “a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action”), and then an exception to that rule (Smith: “substantial” questions of federal law may go directly to federal court). We will then apply that framework to the just decided Grable.
American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler Co.
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing
Civil Procedure I #21: More on Federal Questions Monday, Oct 31 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:10 pm
We continue our discussion of federal questions, by focusing on the Merrel Dow case. We find that having a federal question in the complaint raised by the plaintiff is necessary for federal jurisdiction, but apparently not sufficient.
Osborn v. Bank of U.S.
Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Procedure I #20: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Intro Thursday, Oct 20 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:55 pm
For the next few episodes we will explore federal questions, or as they are alternately known, subject matter jurisdiction. Our first case begins to set up the well pleaded complaint rule, which we will see refined over the years.
Civil Procedure I #19: Diversity Citizenship Thursday, Oct 20 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:52 pm
There are two ways to get into federal court: diversity of citizenship and a federal question. This episode explores and explains the first of these options.
Mas v. Perry (no link available)