Civ Pro Outline

Civil Procedure
Helen Hershkoff, VH 334, 998-6285

Assistant: Richard Kelsey, VH 34, 998-695
!ffice Ho"rs: #, $ 4:%%&'
Civil Procedure((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Chapter 1: A Survey of Civil Action................................................................7
Notes:(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
Chapter 2: Jurisdiction Over the Parties or their Property..........................8
Section A: The Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8
Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. 1877)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
Grace v. McArthur((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
Blackmer v. United States(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
Milliken v. Meer(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
Adam v. Saen!er((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
Section B: "#$andin! the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%
Hess v. Pawloski (U.S. 1927)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%
Section C: A Ne% Theor of Jurisdiction(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2
nternational S!oe "o. v. #as!in$ton (U.S. 19%&)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2
Section &: S$ecific Jurisdiction and State 'on!(Arm 'a%s(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4
'ray v. ()eri*an +a,iator - Stan,ar, Sanitary "or.. (ll. 19/1)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4
Notes0(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5
1*'ee v. nternational 2ife nsuran*e "o. (U.S. 19&7)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6
Hanson v. 3en*kla (U.S. 19&8)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
Squibs(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
"m$ire A)rasive "*ui$. Cor$. v. +.+. ,atson- .nc.(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
#orl,4#i,e 5olkswa$en "or.. v. #oo,son (U.S. 1986)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2%
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2%
/eeton v. +ustler Ma!a0ine .nc.((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2%
/ulko v. Su$erior Court((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2%
7ur$er 8in$ "or.. v. +u,9ewi*9 (U.S. 198&)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((22
Notes0(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((23
(sa!i 1etal n,ustry "o. v. Su.erior "ourt (U.S. 1987)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((24
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((25
Section ": General Jurisdiction and State 'on!(Arm 'a%s(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((26
Perkins v. 7en$uet "onsoli,ate, 1inin$ "o. (U.S. 19&2)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((26
Heli*o.teros Na*ionales ,e "olo)bia: S.(. v. Hall (U.S. 198%)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2)
Notes0(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2)
Section 1: Ne% Bases of Jurisdiction 2 Technolo!ical Contacts((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((28
7ellino v. Si)on (;.3.2a.. 1999)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((28
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((29
Section G: Jurisdiction )ased u$on Po%er over Pro$ert(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3%
Harris v. 7alk (U.S. 196&)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3%
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3%
S!affer v. Heitner (U.S. 1977)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((33
Section +: A 3efrain: Jurisdiction )ased u$on Phsical Presence(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((34
7urn!a) v. Su.erior "ourt (U.S. 1996)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((34
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((35
Section .: Another Basis of Jurisdiction: Consent((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((36
nsuran*e "or.. of relan, v. "o).a$nie ,es 7au<ites ,e 'uinee (U.S. 1982)((((((((((((36
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((36
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3)
M4S Bremen v. 5a$ata 6ff(Shore Co. 7U.S. 89:;<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3)
Carnival Cruise 'ines .nc. v. Shute 7U.S. 8998<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3)
Section J: Jurisdictional 3each of the 1ederal &istrict Courts(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((38
+ule %: =e,eral +ules of "ivil Pro*e,ure((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((38
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((38
6mni Ca$ital .nternational v. 3udolf ,olff = Co. 7U.S. 89>:<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((38
Stafford v. Bri!!s 7U.S. 89>?<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((38
6#ford 1irst Cor$. v. PNC 'i*uidatin! Cor$. 7".&. Pa. 89:@<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((38
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((39
Section /: Challen!in! a CourtAs "#ercise of Jurisdiction over the Person or Pro$ert
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4%
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4%
&ata &isc- .nc. v. Sstems Technolo! Associates- .nc. 79
th
Cir. 89::<((((((((((((((((((((4%
Bald%in v. .o%a State Travelin! MenAs AssAn 7U.S. 89B8<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4%
U.S. .ndustries- .nc. v. Gre!! 7&.&el. 89:B<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4%
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4
Chapter 3: Providin !otice and an Opportunity to "e #eard...................$2
Section A: The 3e*uirement of 3easona)le Notice(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((42
1ullane v. "entral Hanover 7ank - >rust "o. (U.S. 19&6)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((42
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((43
Section &: 6$$ortunit to )e +eard.((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((44
=uentes v. S!evin((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((44
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((45
Sniadach v. 1amil 1inance Cor$. 7U.S. 89C9<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((45
Mitchell v. ,.T. Grant Co. 7U.S. 89:@<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((45
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((46
Nort! 'eor$ia =inis!in$: n*. v. 3i4"!e): n*. (U.S. 197&)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4)
"onne*ti*ut v. 3oe!r (U.S. 1991)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((48
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((49
Chapter $: Jurisdiction over the Su"%ect &atter of the Action ' the Court(s
Co)petency....................................................................................................*+
Section A. Su)Dect(Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5%
2a*ks v. 2a*ks (N? ". of (. 197/)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5%
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5%
+u!hes v. 1etter 7U.S. 89E8<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5%
+o%lett v. 3ose 7U.S. 899?<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5
Section B: The Su)Dect Matter Jurisdiction of the 1ederal Courts 2 &iversit of
Citi0enshi$((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((52
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((52
Stra%)rid!e v. Curtiss 7U.S. 8>?C<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((52
Bank of the United States v. &eveau# 7U.S. 8>?9<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((52
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((52
1as v. Perry (&
t!
"ir. 197%)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((53
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((53
China Nuclear "ner! .ndus. Cor$. v. Andersen- ''P 7&. Colo. 899><(((((((((((((53
Blair +oldin!s Cor$. v. 3u)instein 7S.&.N.F. 89EE<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((54
/ramer v. Cari))ean Mills- .nc. 7U.S. 89C9<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((54
3ose v. Giamatti 7S.&.6hio 89>9<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((54
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((54
(.=.(. >ours: n*. v. #!ite*!ur*! (2
n,
"ir. 1991)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((55
Section C: The Su)Dect Matter Jurisdiction of the 1ederal Courts 2 1ederal Guestions
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5)
@sborn v. 7ank of t!e Unite, States (U.S. 182%)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5)
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5)
2ouisville - Nas!ville +. "o. v. 1ottley (U.S. 1968)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((59
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((59
1ranchise Ta# Board v. Construction 'a)orers Hacation Trust 7U.S. 89>B<((((((59
Bri!ht v. Bechtel Petroleum- .nc. 79
th
Cir. 89>C<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6%
>.7. Har)s "o. v. ;lis*u (2
n,
"ir. 19/%)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((62
Smith v. /ansas Cit Title = Trust Co. 7U.S. 89;8<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((62
Moore v. Chesa$eake = 6hio 3. Co. 7U.S. 89B@<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((62
Shoshone Minin! Co. v. 3utter 7U.S. 89??<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((62
Cort v. Ash 7U.S. 89:E<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((62
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((63
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((65
Section &: The Su)Dect(Matter Jurisdiction of the 1ederal Courts 2 Su$$lemental
Claims and Parties(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((66
Unite, 1ine #orkers of ()eri*a v. 'ibbs (U.S. 19//)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((66
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6)
(l,in$er v. Howar, (U.S. 197/)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((68
@wen ;qui.)ent - ;re*tion "o. v. 8ro$er (U.S. 1978)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((69
=inley v. Unite, States (U.S. 1989)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()%
1en$ler: 7urbank - +owe on A1B/7(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
Squibs(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()2
Shana!han v. Cahill 7@
th
Cir. 899E<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()2
Section ". The Su)Dect(Matter Jurisdiction of the 1ederal Courts 2 3emoval(((((((((((()3
Squibs(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()3
Thermtron Prods.- .nc. v. +ermansdorfer 7U.S. 89:C<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()3
Carne!ie(Mellon Universit v. Cohill 7U.S. 89>><((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()3
American 1ire = Cas. Co. v. 1inn 7U.S. 89E8<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()4
7orou$! of #est 1ifflin v. 2an*aster (B
r,
"ir. 199&)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()5
Notes(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()6
Section 1. Challen!in! the Su)Dect Matter Jurisdiction of the Court(((((((((((((((((((((((((((())
Squibs(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())
3uhr!as AG v. Marathon 6il Co. 7U.S. 8999<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())
Notes(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())
United States v. United Mine ,orkers 7U.S. 89@:<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())
,ill v. Coastal Cor$. 7U.S. 899;<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())
United States Catholic Conference v. A)ortion 3i!hts Mo)ili0ation- .nc. 7U.S.
89>><(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()9
Notes(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()9
Chapter *: ,enue- .ransfer- and /oru) !on Conveniens..........................8+
Section A. Henue((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8%
'eneral Prin*i.les((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8%
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8%
Burlin!ton Northern 33. Co. v. 1ord 7U.S. 899;<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8%
Section C. 1orum Non Conveniens((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((82
'ulf @il "or.. v. 'ilbert (U.S. 19%7)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((82
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((82
Pi.er (ir*raft "o. v. +eyno (U.S. 1981)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((83
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((84
&e Cedeno v. Arosa Mercantile- S.A. 7NF Su$.Ct. 89::<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((84
.slamic 3e$u)lic of .ran v. Pahlavi 7N.F. 89>@<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((84
Chapter 0: Ascertainin the Applica"le 1a2................................................8*
Section A. State 'a% in the 1ederal Courts((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((85
Swift v. >yson (U.S. 18%2)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((85
;rie +. "o. v. >o).kins (U.S. 19B8)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8)
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((88
'uaranty >rust "o. v. ?ork (U.S. 19%&)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9%
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9%
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
3a!an v. Merchants Transfer = ,arehouse Co. 7U.S. 89@9<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
,oods v. .nterstate 3ealt Co. 7U.S. 89@9<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
Cohen v. Beneficial .ndustrial 'oan Cor$. 7U.S. 89@9<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
7yr, v. 7lue +i,$e +ural ;le*tri* "oo.erative: n*. (U.S. 19&8)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((92
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((93
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((93
Allstate .ns. Co. v. Charneski 7:
th
Cir. 89C?<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((93
Bernhardt v. Pol!ra$hic Co. of America- .nc. 7U.S. 89EC<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((93
Hanna v. Plu)er (U.S. 19/&)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((94
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((95
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((95
Si))ach v. ,ilson = Co. 7U.S. 89@8<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((95
Stewart @r$ani9ation: n*. v. +i*o! "or.. (U.S. 1988)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((99
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((99
'as.erini v. "enter for Hu)anities: n*. (U.S. 199/)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%%
Section B. The Pro)lem of Ascertainin! State 'a%((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%2
ntro,u*tory Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%2
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%2
1ason v. ()eri*an ;)ery #!eel #orks (1
st
"ir. 19&7)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%3
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%3
Mc/enna v. 6rtho Pharmaceutical Cor$. 7B
rd
Cir. 89>?<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%3
Pomerant0 v. Clark 7&.Mass. 89E8<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%4
1actors "tc.- .nc. v. Pro Arts- .nc. 7;
nd
Cir. 89>8<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%4
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%4
Section C. 1ederal ICommon 'a%J(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%6
1elt9er: State "ourt =orfeitures of =e,eral +i$!ts(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%6
"learfiel, >rust "o. 5. Unite, States (U.S. 19%B)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%)
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%)
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%)
United States v. /im)ell 1oods- .nc. 7U.S. 89:9<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%)
Bank of America National Trust = Savin!s Association v. Parnell 7U.S. 89EC<
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%8
Chapter 8: &odern Pleadin........................................................................1+3
Section A. The Com$laint((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%9
ntro,u*tory Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%9
3io$uar,i v. 3urnin$ (2
n,
"ir. 19%%)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%9
Squibs((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%9
Conle v. Gi)son 7U.S. 89E:<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%9
Mc+enr v. 3enne 79
th
Cir. 899C<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%
'od!e :@B v. United Aircraft Cor$. 7&. Conn. 89C;<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((%
'ar*ia v. Hilton Hotels nternational: n*. (3.P+. 19&1)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Squibs(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
"llis v. Black &iamond Coal Minin! Co. 7Ala. 89EC<((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Ba!!et v. Chavous 7Ga.A$$. 89CB<(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
7ur,en of Plea,in$ an, 7ur,en of Pro,u*tion(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Section B. 3es$ondin! to the Com$laint(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3
ntro,u*tory Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3
()eri*an NursesC (sso*iation v. llinois (7
t!
"ir. 198/)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4
Section &. Amendments(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5
7ee*k v. (quasli,e DNC 3ive "or.. (8
t!
"ir. 1977)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5
Chapter 11. 4iscovery..................................................................................110
Section A. &iscover(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6
Chapter 13: Ad%udication 2ithout .rial.......................................................117
Section A. Summar Jud!ment(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
(,i*kes v. S.H. 8ress - "o. (U.S. 1976)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
"elote< "or.. v. "atrett (U.S. 198/)(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9
Section C. Takin! the Case from the Jur((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2%
'eneral Notes on 3ire*te, 5er,i*t(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2%
Chapter 175: Collateral 6stoppel...............................................................12$
Section C. .ssue Preclusion((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((24
ntro,u*tory Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((24
"ro)well v. "ounty of Sa* (U.S. 187/)((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((25
Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((25
Section ". Persons Benefited and Bound ) Preclusion(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((26
'eneral Notes((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((26
Chapter 1: A Survey of Civil Action
Notes:
*i+il: *ontrasted ,ith cri'inal( -n .oth there is a /'o+in0 &arty1 2 the &etitioner,
&laintiff, a&&ellant, etc( A cri'inal case is intended to &"nish or deter( -n a ci+il case,
.oth the &laintiff and the defendant can .e a &ri+ate entity or the 0o+ern'ent( $he 0oal
of a ci+il case is co'&ensation or in3"nction(
o A'.i0"ities .et,een ci+il and cri'inal: $here can .e in+ol"ntary ci+il
confine'ent 2 ,hich rese'.les &"nish'ent and cri'inal la,( -s the 0oal
&"nish'ent or reha.ilitation4
o *ri'inal tri00ers certain constit"tional concerns and ri0hts and ci+il tri00ers other
concerns(
o *an look at the distinction .et,een ci+il and cri'inal on a f"nctional le+el( H(
talks a.o"t red"cin0 error(
5roced"re: $raditionally contrasts ,ith s".stance( 6".stance refers to ri0hts and
o.li0ations of la,( 5roced"re is in+ol+ed in 'echanis's of enforce'ent(
o 7ine .et,een &roced"re and s".stance can also .e a'.i0"o"s( H( raises the
8"estion of ,hy ,e ,o"ld re3ect a settle'ent if the "lti'ate re,ard is likely to .e
less than the cost of liti0atin0( $here are 'any ,ays that infor'ation deficits or
irrationality can lead to these sorts of sit"ations( Ho, do &roced"res affect these4
*i+il 7a, 6yste': !&&osed to co''on la, syste', ,hich is an ad+ersarial 'odel ,here
the liti0ants are a"tono'o"s in the sense that it is the &arties ha+e res&onsi.ility for
.rin0in0 'otions to co"rt and "nearthin0 e+idence(
o 98"ity: 5art of the syste', ,hich allo,s the co"rt to "se discretion and 'ercy(
$oday, the co''on la, and e8"ity syste's are co'.ined in ci+il actions(
*ole'an +( $ho'&son: 9:a'&le of the i'&ortance of s'all 8"estion s"ch as ,hether
,eekends are co"nted as &art of the ti'e li'it for ser+in0 &a&ers( $he defendant ,as &"t
to death .eca"se of the error in not co"ntin0 ,eekends(
9:ercise: ;"estion of ,hat sho"ld .e done if an H#! ref"ses to allo, an o&eration that
the &atient thinks is necessary( <hat sho"ld the &atient do4
o #ediation 2 hel&s &arties co'e to an a0ree'ent(
o Ar.itration 2 &ri+ate decision 'akin0 that is .o"nd .y contract la, rather than
tort la,( !ne of the clai's is that the co"rt syste' cannot "nderstand or
effecti+ely re0"late a co'&le: area like health care( An i'&ortant &oint is that
ar.itration does not create &recedents(
Assi0n'ent: *ase.ook 62-)3
Chapter 2: Jurisdiction Over the Parties or their Property
Section A: The Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction
Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. 1877)
="stice >ield
+oldin!: $he 6tate of !re0on did not ha+e personal jurisdiction o+er a non-resident
?@effA ,ho o,ns &ro&erty ,ithin the state in an in personam case, "nless the &ro&erty has
already .een attached to the state( $he 3"d0'ent of the *irc"it *o"rt, to dis'iss the
a&&eal .y 5ennoyer, is "&held, altho"0h s"&&orted .y a different le0al rationale than that
of the lo,er co"rt(
1acts: #itchell, a la,yer in !re0on, s"ed his client @eff for non-&ay'ent of le0al fees(
@eff had retained #itchell to hel& 0et a land &atent fro' the B(6( 0o+ern'ent, and then
had left !re0on and .eco'e a resident of *alifornia ,itho"t &ayin0 hi'( $he state co"rt
in !re0on allo,ed #itchell to 0o ahead ,ith the s"it and serve notice thro"0h &".lication
in an !re0on ne,s&a&er( #itchell ,on .y default and, a year later, he ,ent for,ard ,ith
the writ of execution( $he sheriff then attached the land and a"ctioned it off to &ay for
his clai'( #itchell hi'self .o"0ht the land and t"rned it o+er to 5ennoyer( @eff then
rea&&eared and s"ed 5ennoyer in B(6( *irc"it *o"rt( @eff ,on on 0ro"nds that an
affidavit for the ser+ice .y &".lication ,as fa"lty( 5ennoyer a&&ealed to the B(6(
6"&re'e *o"rt(
.m$ortant 'e!al 3easonin!:
o $he initial 0ro"nds for the B(6( *irc"it *o"rt to dis'iss the case, .eca"se the
affida+it ,as fa"lty, ,ere not s"fficient for that co"rt to dis'iss #itchell +( @eff(
>irst, the 6"&re'e *o"rt tho"0ht that #itchell had f"lfilled his o.li0ation .y
0ettin0 the editor of the ne,s&a&er ?rather than the &rinterA to si0n the affida+it(
6econd, if the affida+it ,as the &ro.le', @eff sho"ld ha+e a&&ealed to a hi0her
co"rt ,ithin the !re0on state syste'( Cy 'o+in0 the case in B(6( federal co"rt,
@eff ,as iss"in0 a collateral challenge rather than an a&&eal(
o !re0on had the &o,er to assert 3"risdiction o+er A residents, 2A &ersons
&hysically ,ithin its .orders, and 3A &ro&erty, ."t only ,hen it has .een attached
.y the state( -n the case of @eff, none of these a&&lied .eca"se the &ro&erty
hadnDt .een attached .y the state "ntil after the initial 3"d0'ent in #itchell +(
@eff(
o $o allo, citiEens to s"e non-residents and ser+e notice to the' in the ne,s&a&er
,o"ld 'ake the la, a tool of o&&ression and fra"d( At the sa'e ti'e, ser+ice of a
resident of 6tate A .y an a0ent of 6tate C ,ithin 6tate A ,o"ld +iolate the
so+erei0nty of 6tate A, so &ersonal ser+ice ,o"ld .e ina&&ro&riate( Ho,e+er,
.eca"se a non-resident o,ner of &ro&erty in a state ,o"ld &res"'a.ly .e a,are of
the stat"s of his or her &ro&erty, it is acce&ta.le to ser+e notice of the seiE"re of
&ro&erty of a non-resident in a &".lication ,ithin the state(
o 6tates A ,o"ld .e re8"ired to coo&erate ,ith 6tate C in cases ,here 6tate C had
&ersonal 3"risdiction o+er a &erson ,ithin the .orders of 6tate A( Ho,e+er, the
*onstit"tion does not re8"ire 6tate A to 0o alon0 ,ith 6tate C if 6tate C does not
ha+e &ersonal 3"risdiction(
Precedents:
o Article 4 of *onstit"tion: />"ll faith and credit shall .e 0i+en in each state to the
&".lic Acts, records and 3"dicial &roceedin0s of e+ery other state(1
o Act of *on0ress: /$hey shall ha+e s"ch faith and credit 0i+en to the' in e+ery
co"rt ,ithin the Bnited 6tates as they ha+e .y la, or "sa0e in the co"rts of the
6tate fro' ,hich they are or shall .e taken(1
&issentin! 3emarks
o @one recorded in o&inion(
Squibs
Grace v. McArthur
Holdin0: An airline &assen0er is "nder the 3"risdiction of the state he or she is flyin0
o+er at any 0i+en 'o'ent(
>acts: A &assen0er ,as ser+ed .y an Arkansas co"rt ,hile flyin0 o+er Arkansas en ro"te
fro' $ennessee to $e:as(
Blackmer v. United States
Holdin0: $he B(6( 'ay le0ally ser+e its citiEens in another co"ntry ,itho"t +iolatin0 that
co"ntryDs a"tono'y(
>acts: A B(6( resident li+in0 in >rance ,as ser+ed in >rance(
Milliken v. Meer
Holdin0: A state can ser+e its residents ,hile they are in another state ?a&&lied Clack'er
to statesA(
>acts: A resident of <isconsin ,as ser+ed in *olorado(
Adam v. Saen!er
Holdin0: -f a &laintiff ,ho is a resident of 6tate C .rin0s a ci+il action a0ainst a resident
of 6tate A in a co"rt in 6tate A, and the defendant iss"es a co"nter action, then the
&laintiff is considered "nder &ersonal 3"risdiction of 6tate A( 6tate C is re8"ired to
res&ect the r"lin0s of 6tate A(
>acts: A $e:as-.ased cor&oration, Cea"'ont 9:&ort F -n&ort *o(, .ro"0ht a ci+il action
a0ainst #ontes, a resident of *alifornia, in *alifornia state co"rt( #ontes then iss"ed a
co"nter action( Cea"'ont defa"lted on its action and #ontes ,on his co"nter action .y
defa"lt( #ontes then assi0ned his 3"d0'ent to Ada', ,ho tried to ha+e it enforced in
$e:as( $he $e:as co"rt str"ck do,n Ada'Ds clai' .y sayin0 that *alifornia la, did not
allo, for the 'ethod of ser+ice e'&loyed .y Ada' and that *alifornia had no other
3"risdiction o+er Cea"'ont(
Section B: "#$andin! the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction
Hess v. Pawloski (U.S. 1927)
Justice Butler
+oldin!: $he state 'ay declare that the "se of the hi0h,ay .y the nonresident is the
e8"i+alent of the a&&oint'ent of the re0istrar as an a0ent on ,ho' &rocess 'ay .e
ser+ed( $he difference .et,een the for'al and i'&lied a&&oint'ent is not s".stantial, so
far as concerns the a&&lication of the d"e &rocess cla"se of the 4
th
A'end'ent(
="d0'ent affir'ed(
1acts: Hess ,as dri+in0 thro"0h #assach"setts and ne0li0ently str"ck and in3"red the
defendant 5a,loski( #assach"setts ser+ed Hess .y 'ail at his 5ennsyl+ania ho'e,
s"''onin0 hi' for trial "nder 3"risdiction esta.lished .y state le0islation( Hess entered
a s&ecial a&&earance in #assach"setts co"rt to dis&"te that his d"e &rocess ri0hts ,ere
.ein0 +iolated .y the ser+ice(
Procedural +istor: $he &laintiff 'ade a s&ecial a&&earance in #assach"setts co"rt to
dis&"te state 3"risdiction( 6tate 6"&re'e *o"rt held that 3"risdiction ,as ,arranted( At
trial, the 3"ry ret"rned a +erdict for the defendant in error( 5laintiff a&&ealed to 6"&re'e
*o"rt(
Precedents:
o 5ennoyer +( @eff: @otice sent o"tsident the state to a non-resident is "na+ailin0 to
0i+e 3"risdiction in an in &ersona' action(
o #cGonald +( #a.ee: A &ersonal 3"d0'ent a0ainst a nonresident defendant ,ho
neither has .een ser+ed &rocess nor a&&eared in co"rt is ,itho"t +alidity(
o >le:ner +( >arson: $he 'ere transaction of ."siness in a state .y a nonresident
does not i'&ly consent to .e .o"nd .y the &rocess of its co"rts(
o Kane +( @e, =ersey: $he case reco0niEes the &o,er of a state to e:cl"de a
nonresident Hfro' state hi0h,aysI "ntil the for'al a&&oint'ent Hof an a0entI is
'ade(
o $he #ass( 6tat"te 'akes no hostile discri'ination a0ainst nonresidents, ."t tends
to &"t the' on the sa'e footin0 as residents(
o $he stateDs &o,er to re0"late the "se of its hi0h,ays e:tends to their "se .y
nonresidents as ,ell as .y residents(
o -n ad+ance of the o&eration of a 'otor +ehicle on its hi0h,ay .y a nonresident,
the state 'ay re8"ire hi' to a&&oint one of its officials as his a0ent on ,ho'
&rocess 'ay .e ser+ed in &roceedin0s 0ro,in0 o"t of s"ch "se(
&issentin! 6$inions:
o @one(
Notes
Hess indicates a se&aration of &o,er and notice, i(e( the &hysical &resence of the
nonresident defendant is no lon0er needed for ser+ice( /*onsent1 here is a le0al fiction(
6tate is only allo,ed to assert 3"risdiction on those iss"es that relate to the defendantDs
."siness and actions in the state( Bnder Hess, co"ld the state ha+e .ro"0ht a s"it for a
tort "nrelated to a"to'o.iles4
After 5ennoyer +( @eff, the co"rt "sed theories like /5resence1, ,hich says that /a
forei0n cor&oration is a'ena.le to &rocess if it is doin0 ."siness ,ithin the 6tate in s"ch
a 'anner and to s"ch e:tent as to ,arrant the inference that it is &resent there(1
Section C: A Ne% Theor of Jurisdiction
nternational S!oe "o. v. #as!in$ton (U.S. 19%&)
Chief Justice Stone
+oldin!: A&&ellant ha+in0 rendered itself a'ena.le to s"it "&on o.li0ations arisin0 o"t
of the acti+ities of its sales'en in <ashin0ton, the state 'ay 'aintain the &resent s"it in
&ersona' to collect the ta: laid "&on the e:ercise of the &ri+ile0e of e'&loyin0 the
a&&ellantDs sales'en ,ithin the state(
1acts: 5laintiff is a Gela,are cor&oration ,ith its &rinci&al &lace of ."siness in
#isso"ri( 5laintiff does ."siness in <ashin0ton 6tate thro"0h sales'en ,ho refer
c"sto'ers to the #isso"ri office for sales and are &aid on co''ission( $he <ashin0ton
sales'en are residents of <ashin0ton and cond"ct al'ost all of their ."siness in
<ashin0ton( <ashin0ton 6tate has an e'&loy'ent ins"rance &ro0ra' f"nded thro"0h
contri."tion re8"ired to .e 'ade .y e'&loyers( 5laintiff had not &aid its contri."tions
and ,as .ein0 s"ed .y the state for .ack &ay'ents(
Procedural +istor: 5laintiff .ro"0ht action a0ainst 6tate of <ashin0ton for +iolation
of its d"e &rocess ri0hts(
Precedents:
o 5ennoyer +( @eff: 5resence ,ithin the territorial 3"risdiction of a co"rt ,as
&rere8"isite to its rendition of a 3"d0'ent &ersonally .indin0 hi'(
o #illiken +( #eyer: G"e &rocess re8"ires only that in order to s".3ect a defendant
to a 3"d0'ent in &ersona', if he .e not &resent ,ithin the territory of the for"',
he ha+e certain 'ini'"' contacts ,ith, s"ch that the 'aintenance of the s"it does
not offend /traditional notions of fair &lay and s".stantial 3"stice(1
o H"tchinson +( *hase F Jil.ert: $he ter's K&resentD or K&resenceD are "sed 'erely
to sy'.oliEe those acti+ities of the cor&orationDs a0ent ,ithin the state ,hich
co"rts ,ill dee' to .e s"fficient to satisfy the de'ands of d"e &rocess(
o Kane +( @e, =erseyL Hess +( 5a,loski: 6o'e sin0le or occasional acts, .eca"se
of their nat"re and 8"ality, 'ay .e dee'ed s"fficient to render the cor&oration
lia.le for s"it(
o $he re0"lar and syste'atic solicitation of orders in the state .y a&&ellantDs
sales'en ,as s"fficient to constit"te doin0 ."siness in the state(
o $he stat"te does not i'&ose an "nconstit"tional ."rden on interstate co''erce(
o *or&orate &ersonality, "nlike an indi+id"al, can 'anifest its &resence ,itho"t as
,ell as ,ithin the state of its ori0in only .y the acti+ities carried on in its .ehalf
.y those ,ho are a"thoriEed to act for it(
o An /esti'ate of the incon+eniences1 ,hich ,o"ld res"lt to the cor&oration fro' a
trial a,ay fro' its /ho'e1 or &rinci&al &lace of ."siness is rele+ant in this
connection(
o $here are instances in ,hich the contin"o"s cor&orate o&erations ,ithin a state
,ere tho"0ht so s".stantial and of s"ch a nat"re as to 3"stify s"it a0ainst it on
ca"ses of action arisin0 fro' dealin0s entirely distinct fro' those acti+ities(
o <hether d"e &rocess is satisfied '"st de&end on the 8"ality and nat"re of the
acti+ity in relation to the fair and orderly ad'inistration of the la,s ,hich it ,as
the &"r&ose of the d"e &rocess cla"se to ins"re(
o $o the e:tent that a cor&oration e:ercises the &ri+ile0e of cond"ctin0 acti+ities
,ithin a sate, it en3oys the .enefits and &rotection of the la,s of that state(
o @o reason for readin0 the d"e &rocess cla"se so as to restrict a 6tateDs &o,er to
ta: and s"e those ,hose acti+ities affect &ersons and ."sinesses ,ithin the 6tate,
&ro+ided &ro&er ser+ice can .e had(
o @one(
Section &: S$ecific Jurisdiction and State 'on!(Arm 'a%s
'ray v. ()eri*an +a,iator - Stan,ar, Sanitary "or.. (ll. 19/1)
Justice /lin!)eil
+oldin!: $he defendant H$itanIDs association ,ith the 6tate is s"fficient to s"&&ort the
e:ercise of 3"risdiction( Re+ersed and re'anded, ,ith directions(
1acts: A ,ater heater 'an"fact"red .y A'erican Radiator e:&loded after .ein0 installed
in -llinois, in3"rin0 the &laintiff( $he e:&losion ,as traced .ack to a fa"lty +al+e, ,hich
,as 'an"fact"red .y $itan #an"fact"rin0 of !hio( $itan had no direct sales to -llinois
and no other contacts ,ith the state( Jray s"ed A'erican Radiator and $itan "nder an
-llinois stat"te that clai'ed that cor&orations and indi+id"als ,ere lia.le in -llinois co"rts
for tortio"s acts co''itted in -llinois(
Procedural +istor: Jray s"ed A'erican Radiator and also $itan Val"e #an"fact"rin0
*o(, ,hich s"&&lied a fa"lty &art to A'erican Radiator( $itan filed a 'otion to 8"ash
.ased on lack of 3"risdiction( $he trial co"rt 0ranted $itanDs 'otion and the &laintiff
a&&ealed(
Precedents:
o @elson +( #iller: $he -llinois stat"te co'te'&lates the e:ertion of 3"risdiction
o+er nonresident defendants to the e:tent &er'itted .y the G"e 5rocess cla"se(
o -nternational 6hoe +( <ashin0ton: $he &o,er of a state de&ends on t,o
8"estions: ?A ,hether the defendant has certain 'ini'"' contacts ,ith the state
and ?2A ,hether there has .een a reasona.le 'ethod of notification(
o 5erkins +( Cen0"et *onsolidated #inin0 *o'&any: <here the ."siness done .y a
forei0n cor&oration in the 6tate of the for"' is of a s"fficiently s".stantial nat"re,
it has .een held &er'issi.le for the 6tate to entertain a s"it a0ainst it e+en tho"0h
the ca"se of action arose fro' acti+ities entirely distinct fro' its cond"ct ,ithin
the 6tate( ?note: ,as an ar0"'ent for 0eneral 3"risdictionA
o #cJee +( -nternational 7ife -ns"rance *o(: -t is s"fficient for the &"r&oses of d"e
&rocess that the s"it ,as .ased on a contract ,hich had s".stantial connection
,ith the for"' state(
o 6'yth +( $,in 6tate -'&ro+e'ent *or&(: *ontin"o"s acti+ity ,ithin the state is
not necessary as a &rere8"isite to 3"risdiction(
o @elson +( #iller: $he co''ission of a sin0le tort ,ithin this state ,as held
s"fficient to s"stain 3"risdiction "nder the &resent stat"te(
o Hanson +( Genckla: *o"rts cannot /ass"'e that this trend Ha,ay fro' territorial
3"stifications of 3"risdictionI heralds the e+ent"al de'inse of all restrictions on the
&ersonal 3"risdiction of state co"rts(1
o $ra+elers Heath Association +( Vir0inia: A @e.raska ins"rance cor&oration ,as
held s".3ect to the 3"risdiction of a Vir0inia re0"latory co''ission altho"0h it
had no &aid a0ents ,ithin the state M /s"its on alle0ed losses can .e 'ore
con+eniently tried in Vir0inia ,here ,itnesses ,o"ld 'ost likely li+e and ,here
clai's for losses ,o"ld &res"'a.ly .e in+esti0ated(1
o !n the iss"e of a distinction .et,een the &lace of a /tort1 and a /tortio"s action1:
<e think it is clear that the alle0ed ne0li0ence in 'an"fact"rin0 the +al+e cannot
.e se&arated fro' the res"ltin0 in3"ryL and that for &resent &"r&oses, like those of
lia.ility and li'itations, the tort ,as co''itted in -llinois(
o <e do not think that doin0 a 0i+en +ol"'e of ."siness is the only ,ay in ,hich a
nonresident can for' the re8"ired connection ,ith this 6tate M at the &resent
ti'e it is s"fficient if the act or transaction itself has a s".stantial connection ,ith
the for"'(
o $he rele+ant in8"iry is ,hether the defendant en0a0ed in so'e act or cond"ct .y
,hich he 'ay .e said to ha+e in+oked the .enefits and &rotections of the la, of
the for"'(
o $he trend in definin0 d"e &rocess of la, is a,ay fro' the e'&hasis on territorial
li'itations and to,ard e'&hasis on &ro+idin0 ade8"ate notice and o&&ort"nity to
.e heard: fro' the co"rt ,ith i''ediate &o,er o+er the defendant, to,ard the
co"rt in ,hich .oth &arties can 'ost con+eniently settle their dis&"te(
o <hen the alle0ed lia.ility arises, as in this case, fro' the 'an"fact"re of &rod"cts
&res"'a.ly sold in conte'&lation of "se here, it sho"ld not 'atter that the
&"rchase ,as 'ade fro' an inde&endent 'iddle'an or that so'eone other than
the defendant shi&&ed the &rod"ct into this 6tate(
o -t is not "nreasona.le, ,here a ca"se of action arises fro' alle0ed defects in his
&rod"ct, to say that the "se of s"ch &rod"cts in the ordinary co"rse of co''erce is
s"fficient contact ,ith this 6tate to 3"stify a re8"ire'ent that he defend here(
&issentin! 6$inons:
o @one(
Notes0
>or"' non con+eniens: $he doctrine that co"rt ,ith 3"risdiction sho"ld yield to another
co"rt ,ith 3"risdiction if trial in the second co"rt is 'ore con+enient to the &arties(
$he ,ords /,ithin the state1 ha+e .een inter&reted 'ore li.erally ,hen the rele+ant act is
an intentional tort(
1*'ee v. nternational 2ife nsuran*e "o. (U.S. 19&7)
+oldin!: *aliforniaDs clai' of 3"risdiction .ased on a contract ,ith s".stantial
connection to the state ,as held to .e &ro&er(
1acts: $he &laintiff, a *alifornia resident, ,as the .eneficiary of a life ins"rance &olicy
iss"ed .y 9'&ire #"t"al -ns"rance *o( of AriEona( -nternational 7ife ass"'ed
res&onsi.ility for 9'&ireDs ins"rance o.li0ations( 5laintiff and -nternational 7ife had
contin"o"s contact o+er a series of years( @either 9'&ire nor -nternational 7ife had any
a0ents in *alifornia and neither did any other ."siness in *alifornia( <hen -nternational
7ife ref"sed to &ay #cJeeDs clai', he s"ed "nder the *alifornia Bna"thoriEed -ns"rerDs
5rocess Act, ,hich s".3ects forei0n cor&orations to s"it on ins"rance contracts ,ith in-
state residents(
Procedural +istor: *alifornia r"led in fa+or of #cJee, ,ho then so"0ht to enforce the
3"d0'ent in $e:as, ,here -nternational 7ife ,as .ased( A $e:as co"rt ref"sed to "&hold
the *alifornia 3"d0'ent, holdin0 it +oid "nder the 4
th
A'end'ent(
Precedent:
o @one listed in 9:cer&t(
o Ceca"se of the nationaliEation of co''erce d"rin0 the 2%
th
cent"ry, there is a
clearly discerni.le trend to,ard e:&andin0 the sco&e of &er'issi.le state
3"risdiction o+er forei0n cor&orations and other nonresidents(
o @one(
Hanson v. 3en*kla (U.S. 19&8)
Chief Justice ,arren
+oldin!: Ceca"se the tr"steeDs contacts ,ith >lorida had .een less than 'ini'al, that
state co"ld not assert &ersonal 3"risdiction o+er it( 6ince >lorida had not o.tained
&ersonal 3"risdiction o+er an indis&ensa.le &arty to the action, the tr"stee, Gela,are ,as
3"stified in ref"sin0 f"ll faith and credit to the >lorida decree(
1acts: Gora Genckla, a resident of 5ennsyl+ania, esta.lished a tr"st in Gela,are, na'in0
a Gela,are .ank as tr"stee( B&on her death, the re'ainder of the tr"st ,o"ld &ass to
,ho'e+er she had a&&ointed as .eneficiaries( 7ater, #rs( Gonner 'o+ed to >lorida(
<hile in >lorida, she e:ec"ted her ,ill, ,hich na'ed t,o of her da"0hters as
.eneficiaries( 6he then e:ec"ted the last chan0e in her tr"st, desi0natin0 t,o
0randchildren ?children of a third da"0hterA .eneficiaries of the tr"st, ,ith the re'ainder
0oin0 to her estate( After #rs( GonnerDs death, the t,o da"0hters na'ed in a ,ill
.ro"0ht an action in >lorida clai'in0 that the a&&oint'ent of their sisterDs children as
.eneficiaries of the tr"st had .een ineffecti+e(
Precedents:
o @one(
o Restrictions on the &ersonal 3"risdiction of state co"rts are 'ore than a 0"arantee
of i''"nity fro' incon+enient or distant liti0ation( $hey are a conse8"ence of
territorial li'itations on the &o,er of the res&ecti+e 6tates(
o Ho,e+er 'ini'al the ."rden of defendin0 in a forei0n tri."nal, a defendant 'ay
not .e called "&on to do so "nless he has had the /'ini'al contacts1 ,ith that
6tate that are a &rere8"isite to its e:ercise of &o,er o+er hi'(
o $he "nilateral acti+ity of those ,ho clai' so'e relationshi& ,ith a nonresident
defendant cannot satisfy the re8"ire'ent of contact ,ith the for"' state(
o $he defendant '"st &"r&osely a+ail itself of the &ri+ile0e of cond"ctin0 acti+ities
,ithin the for"' state(
o *hoice of la, is a different iss"e than &ersonal 3"risdiction(
&issentin! 6$inions: Justice Black
o $he 8"estion ,hether the la, of a 6tate can .e a&&lied to a transaction is different
fro' the 8"estion ,hether the co"rts of that 6tate ha+e 3"risdiction to enter a
3"d0'ent, ."t the t,o are often closely related(
o <here a transaction has as '"ch relationshi& to a 6tate as HthisI a&&oint'ent had
to >lorida its co"rt o"0ht to ha+e &o,er to ad3"dicate contro+ersies arisin0 o"t of
that transaction(
Squibs
"m$ire A)rasive "*ui$. Cor$. v. +.+. ,atson- .nc.
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: Altho"0h so'e other so+erei0n state 'ay ha+e a s"&erior
interest in ha+in0 the contro+ersy finally ad3"d0ed in its co"rts, o"r syste' of federalis'
has reco0niEed that s"ch conflicts .et,een states ,ill often arise, and has concl"ded that
as lon0 as the for"'Ds interest in o&enin0 its co"rts to the liti0ants is of d"e &rocess
di'ensions, the so+erei0n ri0hts of a sister state are not "nconstit"tionally a.rid0ed(
#orl,4#i,e 5olkswa$en "or.. v. #oo,son (U.S. 1986)
Justice ,hite
+oldin!: Ceca"se ,e find the &etitioners ha+e no /contacts, ties, or relations1 ,ith the
6tate of !klaho'a, the 3"d0'ent of the 6"&re'e *o"rt of !klaho'a is re+ersed(
1acts: $he &laintiffs in the ori0inal case ?res&ondents hereA .o"0ht an A"di fro'
defendant ?&etitionerA 6ea,ay Volks,a0on in @e, Nork 6tate( At the ti'e, the &laintiffs
,ere residents of @e, Nork( $he ne:t year, they 'o+ed to AriEona( <hile in !klaho'a
on the ,ay to their ne, ho'e, their A"di ,as str"ck .y another car, ca"sin0 the' in3"ry(
$hey s".se8"ently .ro"0ht a &rod"ct lia.ility s"it a0ainst A"di, <orld-<ide Volks,a0en
?the re0ional distri."torA, and 6ea,ay in !klaho'a( @either <orld-<ide nor 6ea,ay
had any &re+io"s contacts ,ith the 6tate of !klaho'a(
Procedural +istor: $he defendants entered s&ecial a&&earances to contest 3"risdiction
of the s"it in !klaho'a( $he trial co"rt re3ected their clai', so they so"0ht a ,rit of
&rohi.ition fro' the !klaho'a 6"&re'e *o"rt to restrain the trail 3"d0e ?<oodsonA( $he
,rit ,as denied, so they a&&ealed to the B(6( 6"&re'e *o"rt(
Precedents:
o -nternational 6hoe *o( +( <ashin0ton: $he reasona.leness of assertin0
3"risdiction o+er the defendant '"st .e assessed Kin the conte:t of o"r federal
syste' of 0o+ern'ent(D
o Hanson +( Genckla: -t is a 'istake to ass"'e M the e+ent"al de'ise of all
restrictions on &ersonal 3"risdiction of state co"rts( $hese restrictions are 'ore
than a 0"arantee of i''"nity fro' incon+enient or distant liti0ation( $hey are a
conse8"ence of territorial li'itations on the &o,er of the res&ecti+e 6tates M it
,as foreseea.le that the settler of a Gela,are tr"st ,o"ld 'o+e to >lorida M yet
,e hold that >lorida co"rts co"ld not constit"tionally e:ercise 3"risdiction M the
'ere K"nilateral acti+ity of those ,ho clai' so'e relationshi& ,ith a nonresident
defendant cannot satisfy the re8"ire'ent of contact ,ith the for"' 6tate(D
o $he conce&t of 'ini'"' contacts &erfor's t,o related ."t distin0"isha.le
f"nctions( -t &rotects defendants a0ainst the ."rdens of liti0atin0 in a distant or
incon+enient for"'( And it acts to ens"re that the 6tates, thro"0h their co"rts, do
not reach o"t .eyond the li'its i'&osed on the' .y their stat"s as coe8"al
so+erei0ns in the federal syste'(
o $he so+erei0nty of each 6tate, in t"rn, i'&lied a li'itation on the so+erei0nty of
all of its sister 6tates 2 a li'itation e:&ress or i'&licit in .oth the ori0inal sche'e
of the *onstit"tion and the >o"rteenth A'end'ent(
o $he forseea.ility that is critical to d"e &rocess analysis is not the 'ere likelihood
that a &rod"ct ,ill find its ,ay into the for"' 6tate( Rather, it is that the
defendantDs cond"ct and connection ,ith the for"' 6tate are s"ch that he sho"ld
reasona.ly antici&ate .ein0 haled into co"rt there( $he G"e 5rocess *la"se M
0i+es a de0ree of &redicta.ility M that allo,s &otential defendants to str"ct"re
their &ri'ary cond"ct(
o >inancial .enefits accr"in0 to the defendant fro' a collateral relation to the for"'
6tate ,ill not s"&&ort 3"risdiction if they do not ste' fro' a constit"tionally
co0niEa.le contact ,ith that 6tate(
&issentin! 6$inions: ?="stice CrennanA
o $he clear foc"s in -nternational 6hoe ,as on fairness and reasona.leness( $he
e:istence of contacts, so lon0 as there ,ere so'e, ,as 'erely one ,ay of 0i+in0
content to the deter'ination of fairness and reasona.leness(
o 9+en "nder the 'ost restricti+e +ie, of -nternational 6hoe, se+eral 6tates co"ld
ha+e 3"risdiction o+er a &artic"lar ca"se of action(
o -t 'ay .e tr"e that the &etitioners sincerely intended to li'it its co''ercial
i'&act to the li'ited territory M C"t o.+io"sly these ,ere "nrealistic ho&es that
cannot .e treated as an a"to'atic constit"tional shield(
o $he sale of an a"to'o.ile does &"r&osef"lly in3ect the +ehicle into the strea' of
interstate co''erce so that it can tra+el to distant 6tates(
o -t is diffic"lt to see ,hy the *onstit"tion sho"ld distin0"ish .et,een a case
in+ol+in0 0oods ,hich reach a distant 6tate thro"0h a chain of distri."tion and a
case in+ol+in0 0oods ,hich reach the sa'e 6tate .eca"se a cons"'er took the'
there(
o -nternational 6hoe, ,ith its al'ost e:cl"si+e foc"s on the ri0hts of defendants,
'ay .e o"tdated(
o $he Korderly ad'inistration of the la,sD &ro+ides a fir' .asis for accordin0 so'e
&rotection to the interests of &laintiffs as ,ell as of defendants(
Notes
Hershkoff says there is a s"00estion that &ersonal a+ail'ent is a threshold in8"iry in
<orld-<ide(
$here are at least 5 factors in the reasona.leness of a for"': ?A 5laintiff interests ?2A
Gefendant interests ?3A 6tate interest ?4A 6hared efficiency ?5A -nterest in enforce'ent of
shared nor's(
-n <orld-<ide, the 'a3ority see's to ass"'e the defendant sho"ld ha+e an o&&ort"nity
to esca&e a &artic"lar for"'(
Squibs
/eeton v. +ustler Ma!a0ine .nc.
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0:
o <e ha+e not to date re8"ired a &laintiff to ha+e K'ini'"' contactsD ,ith the
for"' 6tate .efore &er'ittin0 that 6tate to assert &ersonal 3"risdiction o+er a
nonresident defendant(
o A &laintiffDs residence in the for"', .eca"se of the defendantDs relationshi& ,ith
the &laintiff, 'ay enhance the defendantDs contacts ,ith the for"'(
o <e do not think that s"ch choice of la, concerns Hi(e( the &laintiff choosin0 a
for"' .eca"se of fa+ora.le la,sI sho"ld co'&licate or distort the 3"dicial in8"iry(
/ulko v. Su$erior Court
o <e cannot acce&t the &ro&osition that a&&elantDs ac8"iescence to -lsaDs desire to
li+e ,ith her 'other conferred 3"risdiction o+er a&&ellant in the *alifornia co"rts
in this action(
o @or can ,e a0ree ,ith the assertion that the e:ercise of in &ersona' 3"risdiction
here ,as ,arranted .y the financial .enefit a&&ellant deri+ed fro' his da"0hterDs
&resence in *alifornia Hi(e( not ha+in0 to &ay her costs of li+in0I(
7ur$er 8in$ "or.. v. +u,9ewi*9 (U.S. 198&)
Justice Brennan
+oldin!: Ceca"se R"dEe,icE esta.lished a s".stantial and contin"o"s relationshi& ,ith
C"r0er Kin0Ds #ia'i head8"arters, recei+in0 fair notice fro' the contract doc"'ents and
the co"rse of dealin0 that he 'i0ht .e s".3ect to s"it in >lorida, and has failed to
de'onstrate ho, 3"risdiction in that for"' ,o"ld other,ise .e f"nda'entally "nfair, ,e
concl"de that the Gistrict *o"rtDs e:ercise of 3"risdiction did not offend G"e 5rocess(
$he 3"d0'ent of the *o"rt of A&&eals is accordin0ly re+ersed, and the case is re'anded
for f"rther &roceedin0s consistent ,ith this o&inion(
1acts: $he &laintiff is a >lorida cor&oration ,hose &rinci&al offices are in #ia'i(
>ranchises are licensed to s"e its trade'arks and ser+ice 'arkets( $he 0o+ernin0
contracts &ro+ide that the franchise relationshi& is esta.lished in #ia'i and 0o+erned .y
>lorida la,, and call for &ay'ent of all re8"ired 'onthly fees and for,ardin0 of all
rele+ant notices to the #ia'i head8"arters( Gay-to-day 'onitorin0 of franchisees,
ho,e+er, is cond"cted thro"0h districted offices( Gefendant is a #ichi0an resident ,ho
entered into a t,enty-year franchise contract ,ith C"r0er Kin0 to o&erate a resta"rant in
#ichi0an( 6".se8"ently, franchisees fell .ehind in their 'onthly &ay'ents( C"r0er Kin0
then .ro"0ht a di+ersity action in >ederal Gistrict *o"rt in >lorida(
Procedural +istor: >ranchisees a&&ealed to B(6( *o"rt of A&&eals for an in3"nction
.ased on lack of 3"risdiction( $he in3"nction ,as 0ranted( C"r0er Kin0 then a&&ealed
in3"nction to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
o <here the defendant /deli.erately1 has en0a0ed in si0nificant acti+ities ,ithin the
6tate or has created /contin"in0 o.li0ations1 .et,een hi'self and residents of the
for"', he 'anifestly has a+ailed hi'self M it is not "nreasona.le to re8"ire hi'
to s".'it to the ."rdens of liti0ation in that for"' as ,ell(
o *ontacts 'ay .e considered in li0ht of other factors to deter'ine ,hether the
assertion of &ersonal 3"risdiction ,o"ld co'&ort ,ith /fair &lay and s".stantial
3"stice(1
o $he *o"rt has e'&hasiEed the need for a /hi0hly realistic1 a&&roach that
reco0niEes that a /contract1 is /ordinarily ."t an inter'ediate ste& ser+in0 to tie
"& &rior ."siness ne0otiations ,ith f"t"re conse8"ences ,hich the'sel+es are the
real o.3ect of the ."siness transaction(1
o @othin0 in o"r cases s"00ests that a choice-of-la, &ro+ision sho"ld .e i0nored in
considerin0 ,hether a defendant has /&"r&osef"lly in+oked the .enefits and
&rotections of a 6tateDs la,s(1
&issentin! 6$inions: ?="stice 6te+ensA
o $he *o"rt see's to rely on nothin0 'ore than standard .oiler&late lan0"a0e
contained in +ario"s doc"'ents M s"ch s"&erficial analysis creates a &otential for
"nfairness not only in ne0otiations .et,een franchisors and their franchisees ."t
in the resol"tion of dis&"tes that ine+ita.ly arise fro' ti'e to ti'e in s"ch
relationshi&s(
o $he &artic"lar distri."tion of .ar0ainin0 &o,er in the franchise relationshi&
f"rther i'&airs the franchiseeDs financial &re&aredness M ="risdiction "nder these
circ"'stances ,o"ld offend the f"nda'ental fairness ,hich is the to"chstone of
d"e &rocess(
Notes0
Hershkoff raised a &oint a.o"t the nat"re of consent and the conditions in 3"risdiction
cases ,here i'&lied consent really 'ay lea+e a &otential defendant ,ith no choice( $he
t,o e:a'&les of this are Hess +( 5a,loski and C"r0er Kin0( <hat nat"re of real consent
sho"ld .e re8"ired4
-n C"r0er Kin0, &o,er relationshi&s ,ere a factor, ."t they co"ld not .e considered .y
the *irc"it *o"rt .eca"se they re&resented a findin0 of fact and ,as not challen0ed as
s"ch(
@ote that in 0eneral #cJee +( -nternational 7ife ,as an i'&ortant &recedent in this case(
Crennan see's to ha+e a &rono"nced interest in /nationaliEin01 the 6tate *o"rt syste'(
$his a&&ears &re+io"sly in <orld-<ide(
(sa!i 1etal n,ustry "o. v. Su.erior "ourt (U.S. 1987)
Justice 6AConnor
+oldin!: $he &etitioner did not &"r&osely a+ail itself of *alifornia and its only contact
,ith *alifornia ,as thro"0h a 'iddle'an distri."tor( $herefore, *alifornia does not
ha+e 3"risdiction o+er the &etitioner and the decision of the *alifornia 6"&re'e *o"rt is
re+ersed(
1acts: Jary O"rcher lost control of his Honda 'otorcycle and collided ,ith a tractor(
O"rcher ,as se+erely in3"red, and his ,ife ,as killed( O"rcher filed a &rod"ct lia.ility
action in *alifornia a0ainst *hen0 6hin R"..er -nd"strial *o(, 7td(, the 'an"fact"rer of
the 'otorcycleDs tire t".e( *hen0 6hin then so"0ht inde'nification fro' Asahi, a
=a&anese co'&any that 'an"fact"red the t".eDs +al+e(
Procedural +istor: *hen0 6hin settled ,ith O"rcher, ,ho then dro&&ed o"t of the s"it(
!nly the inde'nification action .et,een *hen0 6hin and Asahi re'ained( Asahi iss"ed a
'otion to 8"ash s"''ons, ,hich ,as denied .y the 6"&erior *o"rt( $he 6tate *o"rt of
A&&eals then iss"ed a &ere'&tory ,rit co''andin0 the 6"&erior *o"rt to 8"ash
s"''ons( $he 6"&re'e *o"rt of *alifornia then re+ersed the 6tate *o"rt of A&&eals(
Asahi a&&ealed to the B(6( 6"&re'e *o"rt(
Precedents:
o Hanson, C"r0er Kin0: #ini'"' contacts '"st ha+e a .asis in /so'e act .y
,hich the defendant &"r&osef"lly a+ails itself of the &ri+ile0e of cond"ctin0
acti+ities ,ithin the for"' 6tate, th"s in+okin0 the .enefits and &rotections of its
la,s(
o <orld-<ide Volks,a0en: #ini'"' contacts '"st .e .ased on an act of the
defendant(
o <e no, find this latter &osition Hthat the defendantDs a,areness of its &rod"ctDs
entry into the for"' 6tate is in itself ins"fficient to esta.lish 3"risdictionI to .e
consonant ,ith the re8"ire'ents of d"e &rocess( $he /s".stantial connection1
.et,een the defendant and the for"' 6tate necessary for a findin0 of 'ini'"'
contacts '"st co'e a.o"t .y an action of the defendant &"r&osef"lly direct
to,ard the for"' state(
o A defendantDs a,areness that the strea' of co''erce 'ay or ,ill s,ee& the
&rod"ct into the for"' 6tate does not con+ert the 'ere act of &lacin0 the &rod"ct
into the strea' into an act &"r&osef"lly directed to,ard the for"' 6tate(
o <hen 'ini'"' contacts ha+e .een esta.lished, often the interests of the &laintiff
and the for"' in the e:ercise of 3"risdiction ,ill 3"stify e+en the serio"s ."rdens
&laced on an alien defendant(
o $he 6tate 6"&re'e *o"rtDs definition of *aliforniaDs interest in /&rotectin0 its
cons"'ers .y ens"rin0 that forei0n 'an"fact"rers co'&ly ,ith the stateDs safety
standards1 is o+erly .road(
o /Jreat care and reser+e sho"ld .e e:ercised ,hen e:tendin0 o"r notions of
&ersonal 3"risdiction into the international field(1
o $he strea' of co''erce refers not to "n&redicta.le c"rrents or eddies, ."t to
re0"lar and antici&ated flo, of &rod"cts fro' 'an"fact"re to distraction to retail
sale( As lon0 as a &artici&ant in this &rocess is a,are that the final &rod"ct is
.ein0 'arketed in the for"' 6tate, the &ossi.ility of a la,s"it there cannot co'e
as a s"r&rise(
o $he defendant .enefits econo'ically fro' the retail sale of the final &rod"ct in
the for"' 6tate M $hese .enefits accr"e re0ardless of ,hether that &artici&ant
directly cond"cts ."siness in the for"' 6tate(
&issentin! 6$inions: ?="stice 6te+ensA
o An e:a'ination of 'ini'"' contacts is not al,ays necessary to deter'ine
,hether a state co"rtDs assertion of &ersonal 3"risdiction is constit"tional(
o /#ini'"' re8"ire'ents inherent in the conce&t of fair &lay and s".stantial
3"stice 'ay defeat the reasona.leness of 3"risdiction e+en if the defendant has
&"r&osef"lly en0a0ed in for"' acti+ities1 ?C"r0er Kin0A( Accordin0ly, - see no
reason in this case for the &l"rality to artic"late K&"r&osef"l directionD or any other
test as the ne:"s .et,een an act of a defendant and the for"' 6tate that is
necessary to esta.lish 'ini'"' contacts(
Notes
$he intent to ser+e a lar0e 'arket 'ay .e a factor in deter'inin0 ,hether a defendant can
.e haled into a for"'( -snDt it reasona.le to ass"'e that a lar0e-scale 'an"fact"rer
sho"ld .e lia.le in a state ,ith a 'a3or 'arket for its 0oods4
$he 'eta&hor of a strea' of co''erce is in Asahi inter&reted as a scatterin0 or as a
re0"lated flo,(
Section ": General Jurisdiction and State 'on!(Arm 'a%s
Perkins v. 7en$uet "onsoli,ate, 1inin$ "o. (U.S. 19&2)
+oldin!: Bnder the circ"'stances a.o+e, it ,o"ld not +iolate federal d"e &rocess for
!hio either to take or decline 3"risdiction of the cor&oration in this &roceedin0(
1acts: $he defendant, a 5hilli&ine cor&oration, ,as s"ed .y a nonresident of !hio in an
!hio state co"rt on ca"ses of action arisin0 fro' acti+ities cond"cted .y the defendant
o"tside of !hio(
Procedural +istor: $he !hio state co"rts 0ranted the defendantDs 'otion to 8"ash the
s"''ons( 5laintiff a&&ealed to the 6"&re'e *o"rt(
Precedents:
o @one listed(
o $he cor&orate acti+ities of a forei0n cor&oration ,hich, "nder state stat"te, 'ake
it necessary for it to sec"re a license and to desi0nate a stat"tory a0ent &ro+ide a
hel&f"l ."t not a concl"si+e test of 0eneral 3"risdiction(
Heli*o.teros Na*ionales ,e "olo)bia: S.(. v. Hall (U.S. 198%)
Justice Blackmun
+oldin!: <e hold that HelicolDs contacts ,ith the 6tate of $e:as ,ere ins"fficient to
satisfy the re8"ire'ents of the G"e 5rocess *la"se of the >o"rteenth A'end'ent(
Accordin0ly, ,e re+erse the 3"d0'ent of the 6"&re'e *o"rt of $e:as(
1acts: $he &etitioner is a *olo'.ian cor&oration ,ith its &rinci&al &lace of ."siness in
Co0ota( A helico&ter o,ned .y Helicol H&etitionerI crashed in 5er"( >o"r B(6( citiEens
,ere killed( Res&ondentsD decedents ,ere e'&loyed .y <illia's-6edco-Horn ?<6HA, a
3ointed +ent"re ,ith its head8"arters in Ho"ston, $e:as( Helicol had an esta.lished
,orkin0 relationshi& ,ith <6H and also had .o"0ht helico&ters and trained &ilots in
$e:as(
Procedural +istor: Res&ondents instit"ted a ,ron0f"l death action in 6tate Gistrict
*o"rt( Helicol filed to dis'iss on lack of 3"risdiction( #otion ,as denied and 3"ry fo"nd
in fa+or of &laintiffs( $e:as *o"rt of *i+il A&&eals re+ersed this 3"d0'ent and then the
$e:as 6"&re'e *o"rt re+ersed the 3"d0'ent of the inter'ediate co"rt(
Precedents:
o Rosen.er0 Cros( F *o( +( *"rtis Cro,n *o(: #akes clear that &"rchases and
related tri&s, standin0 alone, are not a s"fficient .asis for a 6tateDs assertion of
3"risdiction(
o All &arties to the &resent case concede that res&ondentsD clai's a0ainst Helicol
did not /arise o"t of1 and are not related to HelicolDs acti+ities ,ithin $e:as(
o 9+en ,hen the ca"se of action does not arise o"t of or relate to the forei0n
cor&orationDs acti+ities in the for"' 6tate, d"e &rocess is not offended .y a 6tateDs
s".3ectin0 the cor&oration to its in &ersona' 3"risdiction ,hen there are s"fficient
contacts .et,een the 6tate and the forei0n cor&oration(
o !n the .asis of contin"o"s co''ercial contacts ,ith the for"', - ,o"ld concl"de
that the G"e 5rocess *la"se allo,s the 6tate of $e:as to assert 0eneral 3"risdiction
o+er the &etitioner(
o *ontacts .et,een the defendant and the for"' are si0nificantly related to the
ca"se of action alle0ed in the ori0inal s"it filed .y the res&ondents(
o $here is a s".stantial difference .et,een contacts that are /related to1 and those
that /0i+e rise1 to the "nderlyin0 ca"se of action(
o 7i'itin0 the s&ecific 3"risdiction of a for"' to cases in ,hich the ca"se of action
for'ally arose o"t of the defendantDs contacts ,ith the 6tate ,o"ld s".3ect
constit"tional standards "nder the G"e 5rocess *la"se to the +a0aries of the
s".stanti+e la, or &leadin0 re8"ire'ents of each 6tate(
Notes0
$he 8"estion of ,hether yo" can consent to 3"risdiction de&ends on ,hether the la, is
.ased on indi+id"al ri0hts and G"e 5rocess or state so+erei0nty(
CrennanDs test is that ,e ha+e to look at the Kentire narrati+e str"ct"reD of the 0rie+ance(
Ho, this affects 3"risdiction de&ends on the 3"stification that "nderlies oneDs r"le of
3"risdiction(
Section 1: Ne% Bases of Jurisdiction 2 Technolo!ical Contacts
7ellino v. Si)on (;.3.2a.. 1999)
Jud!e Hance
+oldin!: Bnsolicited calls to a nonresident defendant do not constit"te &"r&osef"l
a+ail'ent necessary for &ersonal 3"risdiction( Ho,e+er, e:tendin0 a con+ersation .y
sendin0 e'ails or 'akin0 &hone calls to a &arty ,ithin a state can co"nt as 'ini'"'
contacts( *o"rt 0rants 'otion to dis'iss for defendant 6&ence ."t denies it for defendant
6i'on(
1acts: *hristo&her A".ert, a 7o"isiana resident, 'ade contact ,ith defendant 6i'on, a
@e, Nork resident and o,ner of a s&orts 'e'ora.ilia co'&any, +ia #r( 6i'onDs -nternet
,e. site( After A".ert initiated the con+ersation, 6i'on called or e'ailed A".ert se+eral
ti'es( -n these e'ails and calls, 6i'on alle0edly li.eled &laintiff Cellino( Additionally,
6i'on referred A".ert to defendant 6&ence, a resident of 5ennsyl+ania, ,ho alle0edly
li.eled Cellino d"rin0 an "nsolicited call fro' A".ert(
Procedural +istor: $he defendants 'ade a 'otion to dis'iss to the trial co"rt(
Precedents:
o 6aktides +( *oo&er ?<(G( $e:( 99%A: $he fid"ciary shield doctrine &rotects
cor&orate officers and e'&loyees fro' &ersonal 3"risdiction .ased on contacts
,ith the for"' state 'ade solely in their cor&orate ca&acity( Ho,e+er, .eca"se it
is an e8"ita.le, not a constit"tional, doctrine, /HsIo'e *o"rts ha+e M stated that
the fid"ciary shield doctrine is "nnecessary ,here the 6tateDs lon0-ar' stat"te has
.een held to e:tend to the li'its of d"e &rocess(1
o G(=( -n+est'ents -nc( +( #etEeler #otorcycle $ire A0ent Jre00, -nc( ?5
th
*ir(
985A: /*onsiderations s"ch as the 8"ality, nat"re, and e:tent of the acti+ity in
the for"', the forseea.ility of conse8"ences ,ithin the for"' fro' acti+ities
o"tside it, and the relationshi& .et,een the ca"se of action and the contacts relate
to ,hether it can .e said that the defendantDs actions constit"te K&"r&osef"l
a+ail'entD(1
o Cro,n +( >lo,er -nd"s(, -nc( ?5
th
*ir( 982A: /5ersonal 3"risdiction e:isted in
#ississi&&i o+er three nonresident defendants as a res"lt of a sin0le lon0-distance
tele&hone call initiated .y one defendant to a third &arty residin0 in #ississi&&i M
fo"nd that the defendants co"ld ha+e easily foreseen that the in3"rio"s effect of
the tort ,o"ld .e felt .y &laintiffs in #ississi&&i(1
o <ilson +( Celin ?5
th
*ir( 994A: /$he co"rt distin0"ished Cro,n, e'&hasiEin0 that
the <ilson defendants 'erely ans,ered one "ninitiated and "nsolicited &hone
call(1
o #illenni"' 9nter&rises, -nc( +( #illenni"' #"sic, 75 ?G(!r( 999A: /Gistrict
co"rt declined to e:ercise s&ecific 3"risdiction o+er a nonresident defendant .ased
on the sale of one co'&act disc into the for"' .eca"se the record de'onstrated
that an ac8"aintance of &laintiffDs co"nsel instr"cted a third &arty to &"rchase the
disc fro' the defendants(1
o -n a di+ersity action, &ersonal 3"risdiction 'ay .e e:ercised o+er a nonresident
defendant if ?A the lon0-ar' stat"te of the for"' state confers &ersonal
3"risdiction o+er that defendantL and ?2A e:ercise of s"ch 3"risdiction co'&orts
,ith the 4
th
A'end'entDs d"e &rocess cla"se(
o $he e:ercise of &ersonal 3"risdiction satisfies d"e &rocess ,hen ?A the defendant
has &"r&osef"lly a+ailed hi'self of the for"' state .y esta.lishin0 K'ini'"'
contactsD ,ith that stateL and ?2A the e:ercise of 3"risdiction co'&orts ,ith
Ktraditional notions of fair &lay and s".stanti+e 3"stice(D
o *o"rt '"st e:a'ine ,hether the defendant &"r&osef"lly directed his acti+ities
to,ard the for"' state M and ,hether the ca"se of action arises o"t of or relates
to those acti+ities(
o >airness factors considered incl"de ?A defendantDs ."rden, ?2A for"' stateDs
interest, ?3A &laintiffDs interest in con+enient and effecti+e relief, ?4A 3"dicial
syste'Ds interest in efficient resol"tion of contro+ersiesL and ?5A the stateDs shared
interest in f"rtherin0 f"nda'ental social &olicies(
o @one(
Notes
*o"rts ha+e .een rel"ctant to find 3"risdiction .ased solely on the e:istence of ,e.site
ad+ertise'ents( $he 9
th
*irc"it held that Kso'ethin0 'oreD that 'ere 'aintenance of a
,e.site +ie, .y 'e'.ers of a for"' is re8"ired to sho, that the defendant &"r&osef"lly
directed its acti+ities at the for"'(
$he <(G(5a( de+elo&ed a slidin0 scale test ,here /the likelihood that &ersonal
3"risdiction can .e constit"tionally e:ercised is directly &ro&ortionate to the nat"re and
8"ality of co''ercial acti+ity that an entity cond"cts o+er the -nternet(1 $he &lace on
the scale is often deter'ined .y the de0ree of interacti+ity on the ,e.site(
Section G: Jurisdiction )ased u$on Po%er over Pro$ert
Harris v. 7alk (U.S. 196&)
+oldin!: Ge.t is considered to .e attached to a &erson( $h"s, a co"rt can e:ercise in
re' 3"risdiction o+er de.t if the de.tor is &hysically &resent in the for"'(
Procedural +istor: $rial co"rt r"led for a&&ellant and @orth *arolina "&held trial co"rt
+erdict( A&&ealed to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
1acts: Harris, a citiEen of @orth *arolina, o,ed a de.t of P8% to Calk, also of @orth
*arolina( Calk, in t"rn, o,ed P344 to 9&stein of #aryland( <hen Calk took a tri& to
#aryland, 9&stein instit"ted a 0arnishee on Harris to satisfy &art of the de.t that Calk
o,ed 9&stein( Harris consented to the 3"d0'ent and &aid the 'oney( <hen Calk
.ro"0ht an action a0ainst Harris to reco+er the P8% de.t, Harris clai'ed that he had
already satisfied the de.t .y &ayin0 9&stein(
Precedents:
o @one(
o 5o,er o+er the &erson of the 0arnishee confers 3"risdiction on the co"rts of the
state ,here the ,rit iss"es(
o He is as '"ch .o"nd to &ay his de.t in a forei0n state ,hen therein s"ed "&on his
o.li0ation .y his creditor, as he ,as in the state ,here the de.t ,as contracted M
-t is nothin0 ."t the o.li0ation to &ay ,hich is 0arnished or attached(
o $he *o"rt indicated in dict"' that the res"lt 'i0ht ha+e .een different if Calk had
not .een 0i+en notice of the attach'ent and an o&&ort"nity to defend in the
#aryland action( ?Goes this refer to &ostin0 the notice on the #aryland
co"rtho"se4 <as that notice s"fficient4A
o @one(
Notes
-f Harris hadnDt &aid, then 9&stein co"ld ha+e s"ed Harris in &ersona' to enforce the
8"asi in re' 3"d0'ent(
/+el non1 'eans /or the a.sence of it ?the'A1
$he co''ent that the res"lt 'i0ht ha+e .een different if Calk had not .een 0i+en notice
of the attach'ent see's to reflect 5ennoyer +( @eff(
S!affer v. Heitner (U.S. 1977)
Justice Marshall
+oldin!: Gela,areDs assertion of 3"risdiction o+er a&&ellants in this case is
inconsistent ,ith that constit"tional li'itation on state &o,er( $he 3"d0'ent of the
Gela,are 6"&re'e *o"rt '"st, therefore, .e re+ersed(
1acts: Heitner, a nonresident of Gela,are, .ro"0ht a shareholderDs deri+ati+e s"it
a0ainst 28 &resent or for'er officers of the Jreyho"nd *or&( 6i'"ltaneo"sly, he
filed a 'otion of se8"estration of the Gela,are &ro&erty of the indi+id"al defendants(
$he se8"estrator /seiEed1 a&&ro:i'ately 82,%%% shares of Jreyho"nd stock and
o&tions .elon0in0 to 2of the defendants( $he stock ,as considered to .e in
Gela,are .eca"se of a state stat"te that 'akes Gela,are the sit"s of o,nershi& of all
stock in Gela,are cor&orations( 6".3ect to Gela,are la,, defendants '"st enter a
0eneral a&&earance to contest se8"estration, th"s 'akin0 the'sel+es a+aila.le for in
&ersona' 3"risdiction(
Procedural +istor: Gefendants &"t in a s&ecial a&&earance to contest 3"risdiction
to the *o"rt of *harcery( *o"rt r"led a0ainst defendants, ,ho then a&&ealed to
Gela,are 6"&re'e *o"rt( Gela,are 6"&re'e *o"rt affir'ed 3"d0'ent of lo,er
co"rt( Gefendants then a&&ealed to B(6( 6"&re'e *o"rt(
Precedent:
o #"llane +( *entral Hano+er Cank F $r"st *o(: <e ha+e held that &ro&erty
cannot .e s".3ected to a co"rtDs 3"d0'ent "nless reasona.le and a&&ro&riate
efforts ha+e .een 'ade to 0i+e the &ro&erty o,ners act"al notice of the action(
<e held that 4
th
A'end'ent ri0hts cannot de&end on the classification of an
action as in re' or in &ersona'(
o Restate'ent ?6econdA of *onflicts: A ,ron0doer sho"ld not .e a.le to a+oid
&ay'ent of his o.li0ations .y the e:&edient of re'o+in0 his assets to a &lace
,here he is not s".3ect to an in &ersona' s"it(
o Hanson +( Genckla: $he ar0"'ent that .y acce&tin0 a &osition ,ith a
Gela,are cor&oration, the officers a+ailed the'sel+es of .enefits ,hich
sho"ld confer 3"risdiction is an ar0"'ent for choice of la,, not choice of
3"risdiction( -t does not de'onstrate that a&&ellants ha+e /&"r&osef"lly
a+ailed the'sel+es of the &ri+ile0e of cond"ctin0 acti+ities ,ithin the for"'
6tate(1
o $he o+er,hel'in0 'a3ority of co''entators ha+e re3ected 5ennoyerDs
&re'ise that a &roceedin0 /a0ainst1 &ro&erty is not a &roceedin0 a0ainst the
o,ners of that &ro&erty(
o $o 3"stify an e:ercise of 3"risdiction in re', the .asis for 3"risdiction '"st .e
s"fficient to 3"stify e:ercisin0 /3"risdiction o+er the interests of &ersons in a
thin0(1 $he standard for deter'inin0 ,hether an e:ercise of 3"risdiction o+er
the interests of &ersons is consistent ,ith the G"e 5rocess *la"se is the
'ini'"'-contacts standard el"cidated in -nternational 6hoe(
o -n cases ,here the &ro&erty ,hich no, ser+es as the .asis for state-co"rt
3"risdiction is co'&letely "nrelated to the &laintiffDs ca"se of action M the
&resence of the &ro&erty alone ,o"ld not s"&&ort the 6tateDs 3"risdiction(
o $he e:&ress &"r&ose of the Gela,are se8"estration &roced"re is to co'&el the
defendant to enter a &ersonal a&&earance( -n s"ch cases, if a direct assertion
of &ersonal 3"risdiction o+er the defendant ,o"ld +iolate the *onstit"tion, it
,o"ld see' that an indirect assertion of that 3"risdiction sho"ld .e e8"ally
i'&er'issi.le(
o All assertions of state-co"rt 3"risdiction '"st .e e+al"ated accordin0 to the
standards set forth in -nternational 6hoe and its &ro0eny(
o As HeitnerDs fail"re to sec"re 3"risdiction o+er se+en of the defendants na'ed
in his co'&laint de'onstrates, there is no necessary relationshi& .et,een
holdin0 a &osition as a cor&orate fid"ciary and o,nin0 stock or other interests
in the cor&oration(
Concurrin! 6$inions ?="stice 5o,ellA:
o -n the case of real &ro&erty, in &artic"lar, &reser+ation of the co''on la,
conce&t of 8"asi in re' 3"risdiction ar0"a.ly ,o"ld a+oid the "ncertainty of
the 0eneral -nternational 6hoe standard ,itho"t si0nificant cost to /traditional
notions of fair &lay and s".stantial 3"stice(1
Concurrin! 6$inions ?="stice 6te+ensA:
o - ,o"ld also not read this decision as in+alidatin0 other lon0-acce&ted
'ethods ?like ,hat4A of ac8"irin0 3"risdiction o+er &ersons ,ith ade8"ate
notice of .oth the &artic"lar contro+ersy and the fact that their local acti+ities
'i0ht s".3ect the' to s"it( #y "ncertainty as to the reach of the o&inion, and
'y fear that it &"r&orts to decide a 0reat deal 'ore than is necessary to
dis&ose of this case, &ers"ades 'e 'erely to conc"r in the 3"d0'ent(
&issentin! 6$inions ?="stice CrennanA:
o Reco0niEin0 that todayDs decision f"nda'entally alters the rele+ant
3"risdictional 0ro"nd r"les, - certainly ,o"ld not ,ant to r"le o"t the
&ossi.ility that Gela,areDs co"rts 'i0ht decide that the le0islat"reDs
o+erridin0 &"r&ose of sec"rin0 the &ersonal a&&earance in state co"rts of
defendants ,o"ld .e .est ser+ed .y reinter&retin0 its stat"te to &er'it state
3"risdiction of the .asis of constit"tionally &er'issi.le contacts rather than
stock o,nershi&(
o - a' con+inced as a 0eneral r"le a state for"' has 3"risdiction to ad3"dicate a
shareholder deri+ati+e action centerin0 on the cond"ct and &olicies of the
directors and officers of a cor&oration chartered .y that 6tate(
o $he charterin0 6tate has an "n"s"ally &o,erf"l interest in ins"rin0 the
a+aila.ility of a con+enient for"' for liti0atin0 clai's in+ol+in0 a &ossi.le
'"lti&licity of defendant fid"ciaries(
o 6tate co"rts ha+e le0iti'ately read their 3"risdiction e:&ansi+ely ,hen a ca"se
of action centers in an area in ,hich the for"' 6tate &ossesses a 'anifest
re0"latory interest(
o 5ractical considerations ar0"e in fa+or of seekin0 to .rid0e the distance
.et,een the choice-of-la, and 3"risdictional in8"iries(
o !nce ,e ha+e re3ected the 3"risdictional fra'e,ork created in 5ennoyer +(
@eff, - see no reason to rest 3"risdiction n a fictional o"t0ro,th of that syste'
s"ch as the e:istence of a consent stat"te, e:&ressed or i'&lied(
Notes
>or shareholder la,s"its, yo" '"st s"e the .oard of directors(
*entral lesson of 6haffer is that 'ini'"' contacts sho"ld a&&ly to 8"asi in re'
3"risdiction(
-f a co"rt does ha+e in &ersona' 3"risdiction o+er a defendant for a &artic"lar ca"se of
action, it is "nclear ,hether the co"rt can attach o"t-of-state &ro&erty ,ere there isnDt
'ini'"' contacts( <o"ld enforce'ent of a +erdict in that other state .e an in re'-
&ro&er action4
5ro&erty is 0enerally not attached for 3"risdictional &"r&oses ."t rather for sec"rity(
@ote that the enforce'ent action 'ay deal ,ith cases ,here assets are located in a &lace
,here the defendant doesnDt other,ise ha+e contacts(
!n ,hat .asis ,o"ld a state that is the loc"s of a defendantDs &ro&erty .e a.le to attach
the &ro&erty4
;"asi in re' ?A is ,here t,o &arties ha+e a dis&"te o+er &ro&erty( ;"asi in re' ?2A is
,here one &arty atte'&ts to assert 3"risdiction o+er anotherDs &ro&erty for ca"ses
"nrelated to the &ro&erty(
5art of the iss"e for #arshall and 5o,ell is that defendantDs roles as officers and as
shareholders sho"ld .e se&arated(
Section +: A 3efrain: Jurisdiction )ased u$on Phsical Presence
7urn!a) v. Su.erior "ourt (U.S. 1996)
Justice Scalia
+oldin!: Ceca"se the G"e 5rocess *la"se does not &rohi.it the *alifornia co"rts fro'
e:ercisin0 3"risdiction o+er &etitioner .ased on the fact of in-state ser+ice of &rocess, the
3"d0'ent is affir'ed(
1acts: 5etitioner Gennis C"rnha' ,as 'arried to >rancie C"rnha' in <est Vir0inia(
$he co"&le 'o+ed to @e, =ersey, ,here their t,o children ,ere .orn( $hey then
se&arated and >rancie 'o+ed to *alifornia ,ith the children, "nder the a0ree'ent that
Gennis C"rnha' ,o"ld file for di+orce on the 0ro"nds of /irreconcila.le differences(1
Gennis instead filed "nder /desertion(1 >rancie .ro"0ht s"it in *alifornia to chan0e the
0ro"nds of the di+orce( <hile Gennis ,as in *alifornia for ."siness and to +isit his
children, >rancie had hi' ser+ed ,ith &rocess for the *alifornia s"it(
Procedural +istor: 5etitioner 'ade a s&ecial a&&earance to contest 3"risdiction, ,hich
,as denied( *alifornia *o"rt of A&&eals denied 'anda'"s relief( $he B(6( 6"&re'e
*o"rt then 0ranted certiorari(
Precedents:
o 5ennoyer +( @eff: <e stated that d"e &rocess /'eans a co"rse of le0al
&roceedin0s accordin0 to those r"les and &rinci&les ,hich ha+e .een esta.lished
in o"r syste's of 3"ris&r"dence for the &rotection and enforce'ent of &ri+ate
ri0hts1, incl"din0 the /,ell esta.lished &rinci&les of &".lic la, res&ectin0 the
3"risdiction of an inde&endent 6tate o+er &ersons and &ro&erty(1
o -nternational 6hoe *o( +( <ashin0ton: 5ersonal 3"risdiction satisfies the G"e
5rocess *la"se if it does not +iolate /traditional notions of fair &lay and
s".stantial 3"stice(1
o *o''entaries on the *onflict of 7a,s, ="stice 6tory ?846A: /Cy the co''on
la,, &ersonal actions, .ein0 transitory, 'ay .e .ro"0ht in any &lace, ,here the
&arty defendant 'ay .e fo"nd,1 for /e+ery nation 'ay ri0htf"lly e:ercise
3"risdiction o+er all &ersons ,ithin its do'ains(1
o 6haffer +( Heitner: ,as sayin0 not that all .ases for the assertion of in &ersona'
3"risdiction ?incl"din0, &res"'a.ly, in-state ser+iceA '"st .e treated alike and
s".3ected to the /'ini'"' contacts1 analysis of -nternational 6hoeL ."t rather
that 8"asi in re' 3"risdiction, that fictional /ancient for',1 and in &ersona'
3"risdiction, are really one and the sa'e and '"st .e treated alike(
o <e do not kno, of a sin0le state or federal stat"te, or a sin0le 3"dicial decision
restin0 "&on state la, that has a.andoned in-state ser+ice as a .asis of
3"risdiction( #any recent cases reaffir' it(
o ="risdiction .ased on &hysical &resence alone constit"tes d"e &rocess .eca"se it is
one of the contin"in0 traditions of o"r le0al syste' that define the d"e &rocess
standard of /traditional notions of fair &lay and s".stantial 3"stice(1
o $he lo0ic of 6hafferDs holdin0 M does not co'&el the concl"sion that &hysically
&resent defendants '"st .e treated identically to a.sent ones(
o CrennanDs /conte'&orary notions of d"e &rocess1 are s".3ecti+e and hence
inade8"ate( $his .eco'es a&&arent ,hen he tries to e:&lain ,hy the assertion of
3"risdiction in the &resent case 'eets its standard of contin"in0-A'erican-
tradition-&l"s-innate-fairness( -n the end, he relies co'&letely on the +ery factor
he so"0ht to a+oid: the e:istence of a contin"in0 tradition is not eno"0h, fairness
also '"st .e consideredL fairness e:ists here .eca"se there is a contin"in0
tradition(
o CrennanDs a&&roach does not esta.lish a r"le of la,, only a totality of the
circ"'stances tests, 0"aranteein0 "ncertainty and liti0ation o+er the iss"e of a
for"'Ds co'&etence(
o <e .elie+e &ro0ressi+e chan0es sho"ld .e ado&ted thro"0h the le0islat"re and not
thro"0h the co"rts(
&issentin! 6$inions 7Justice Brennan<:
o $he /'ini'"' contacts analysis1 de+elo&ed in -nternational 6hoe re&resents a far
'ore sensi.le constr"ct for the e:ercise of state-co"rt 3"risdiction than the
&atch,ork of le0al and fact"al fictions that has .een 0enerated fro' the decision
in 5ennoyer +( @eff(
o - find the historical .ack0ro"nd rele+ant .eca"se one h"ndred years of &recedent
&ro+ides the defendant ,ith clear notice that he ,ill .e s".3ect to s"it .eca"se of
&hysical &resence(
&issentin! 6$inions 7Justice Stevens<:
o $he "nnecessarily .road reach of .oth 6calia and CrennanDs o&inions &re+ent 'e
fro' 3oinin0( $he considerations of historical consens"s and fairness co'.ine to
de'onstrate that this is a +ery easy case(
Notes
6calia ar0"ed that 5ennoyer ,as .ased in the co''on la, tradition, and not necessarily
on the 4
th
A'end'ent( <hat is the si0nificance of this distinction 2 that territoriality
'aintains co''on la, i'&ortance4
$otality, ,hich is ,hat 6calia acc"ses Crennan of "sin0 as a test, relies on rhetoric or at
least rhetorical thinkin0 to en"'erate &ossi.ilities and ,ei0h the' accordin0 to
res&ecta.le standards(
Section .: Another Basis of Jurisdiction: Consent
nsuran*e "or.. of relan, v. "o).a$nie ,es 7au<ites ,e 'uinee (U.S. 1982)
+oldin!: $he ins"rersD fail"re to s"&&ly the re8"ested infor'ation as to their contacts
,ith 5ennsyl+ania s"&&orts Kthe &res"'&tion that the ref"sal to &rod"ce e+idence ,as ."t
an ad'ission of the ,ant of 'erit in the asserted defense(D $he sanction too as
esta.lished the facts 2 contacts ,ith 5ennsyl+ania 2 that *CJ ,as seein0 to esta.lish
thro"0h disco+ery(
1acts: *CJ, a .a":ite &rod"cer incor&orated in Gela,are ."t doin0 ."siness only in the
Re&".lic of J"inea, &"rchased ."siness-interr"&tion ins"rance fro' a 5ennsyl+ania-
.ased ins"rer and a 0ro"& of forei0n ins"rance co'&anies( -ns"rers ref"sed to &ay on a
clai' and *CJ s"ed the' in federal co"rt( >orei0n co'&anies contested &ersonal
3"risdiction( *CJ atte'&ted to "se disco+ery to esta.lish facts, ."t co'&anies failed to
co'&ly ,ith co"rtDs orders to &rod"ce infor'ation( Gistrict *o"rt i'&osed a sanction of
a &res"'&ti+e findin0 of 3"risdiction(
Procedural +istor: -ns"rance co'&anies a&&ealed sanction to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
Precedents:
o @one listed(
o $he re8"ire'ent that a co"rt ha+e &ersonal 3"risdiction flo,s not fro' Art( ---, ."t
fro' the G"e 5rocess *la"se( Ceca"se the re8"ire'ent of &ersonal 3"risdiction
re&resents first of all an indi+id"al ri0ht, it can, like other s"ch ri0hts, .e ,ai+ed(
o Cy s".'ittin0 to the 3"risdiction of the co"rt for the li'ited &"r&ose of
challen0in0 3"risdiction, the defendant a0rees to a.ide .y that co"rtDs
deter'ination on the iss"e of 3"risdiction(
o @one(
Notes
<hat does the co"rtDs assertion that &ersonal 3"risdiction is an indi+id"al ri0ht say a.o"t
the &resence test 2 ,hich doesnDt see' to ha+e a 3"stification o"tside of state
so+erei0nty4
6tates ref"se to enforce for"' selection cla"ses in contracts ,hen ( a state interest is at
stake or 2( it ,as an adhesi+e ?.oiler&lateA contract(
Goes the G"e 5rocess *la"se re8"ire the &laintiff to 'ake a sho,in0 of any kind .efore
the defendant can .e forced to &rod"ce doc"'ents and ,itnesses for disco+ery in a
distant for"'4 <hat if it is "nfairly incon+enient for the defendant to &rod"ce these
doc"'ents and ,itnesses for the co"rt4
Squibs
M4S Bremen v. 5a$ata 6ff(Shore Co. 7U.S. 89:;<
Holdin0: <e hold that far too little ,ei0ht and effect ,ere 0i+en to the for"' cla"se in
resol+in0 this contro+ersy(
>acts: 5laintiff Oa&ata contracted ,ith Bnter,eser, a Jer'an cor&oration, to to,
Oa&ataDs drillin0 ri0 fro' 7o"isiana to -taly( $he contract contained a &ro+ision that all
dis&"tes ,ere to .e liti0ated .efore the /7ondon *o"rt of ="stice(1 After the ri0 ,as
da'a0ed in a stor' and to,ed to $a'&a, Oa&ata co''enced s"it a0ainst Bnter,eser in
federal co"rt in >lorida( Bnter,eser, citin0 the for"' selection cla"se, 'o+ed to dis'iss
or to stay the action &endin0 s".'ission of the dis&"te to 7ondon(
5roced"ral History: Gistrict *o"rt ref"sed to dis'iss and *o"rt of A&&eals affir'ed(
*ase taken to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: $he e:&ansion of A'erican ."siness and ind"stry ,ill
hardly .e enco"ra0ed if, not,ithstandin0 sole'n contracts, ,e insist on a &arochial
conce&t that all dis&"tes '"st .e resol+ed "nder o"r la,s and in o"r co"rts(
Carnival Cruise 'ines .nc. v. Shute 7U.S. 8998<
Holdin0: $he for"' cla"se in the contract .et,een *arni+al and 6h"te 'ay .e "&held
and .eca"se of the contract, <ashin0ton state does not ha+e 3"risdiction o+er the
defendant in this case(
>acts: $he 6h"tes &"rchased &assa0e for a se+en-day cr"ise on *arni+alDs shi&( !n their
ticket, there ,as a for"' selection cla"se callin0 for &arties to ad3"dicate dis&"tes in
>lorida( G"rin0 the cr"ise, #r( 6h"te ,as in3"red and alle0e ne0li0ence on *arni+alDs
&art( $he 6h"tes filed s"it in <ashin0ton 6tate, ,here they had .o"0ht the ticket(
5roced"ral History: Gistrict *o"rt held that defendant *arni+al had ins"fficient contacts
to ,arrant 3"risdiction( *o"rt of A&&eals re+ersed, ar0"in0 that there ,ere s"fficient
contacts(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: -ncl"din0 a reasona.le for"' cla"se in a for' contract of
this kind 'ay .e &er'issi.le for se+eral reasons:
o A cr"ise line has a s&ecial interest in li'itin0 fora for la,s"its(
o A cla"se esta.lishin0 for"' e: ante dis&els conf"sion, s&arin0 liti0ants the ti'e
and e:&ense of deter'inin0 correct for"'(
o 5assen0ers .enefit fro' cla"se in the for' of lo,er ticket &rices( ?does this 'ean
that there is consideration4A
Section J: Jurisdictional 3each of the 1ederal &istrict Courts
+ule %: =e,eral +ules of "ivil Pro*e,ure
-n 993, the R"le ,as a'ended to .roaden s".stantially the reach of federal 3"dicial
&rocess(
$he federal co"rt 'ay assert 3"risdiction o+er a defendant in a state ,hen a co"rt of that
state ,o"ld .e e'&o,ered to do so(
R"le 4?kA?A?CA &er'its ser+ice o"tside the for"' state ?."t ,ithin %% 'iles of the co"rt
,here the action is co''enced or is to .e triedA if s"ch ser+ice is necessary to add or 3oin
a third &arty(
R"le 4?kA?A?GA reco0niEes that *on0ress has in so'e instances e:&ressly a"thoriEed
nation,ide, or e+en ,orld,ide ser+ice of &rocess(
Squibs
6mni Ca$ital .nternational v. 3udolf ,olff = Co. 7U.S. 89>:<
Holdin0: >orei0n defendants doin0 ."siness in the Bnited 6tates 'i0ht not .e a'ena.le
to ser+ice of &rocess in any &artic"lar state and th"s ,o"ld .e "nacco"nta.le in the
Bnited 6tates for alle0ed +iolations of federal la,( $h"s, the lo,er co"rtsD findin0s that
3"risdiction ,as "no.taina.le is "&held(
>acts: !'ni, a @e, Nork cor&oration, hired <olff to handle its trades in 7ondon( A
&ri+ate in+estor .ro"0ht an action a0ainst !'ni in 7o"isiana( !'ni atte'&ted to
i'&lead <olff( <olff ar0"ed that the 7o"isiana *o"rt lacked &ersonal 3"risdiction(
5roced"ral History: Gistrict *o"rt and *o"rt of A&&eals denied 3"risdiction( #otion
a&&ealed to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: $he *o"rt ,as ,ell a,are of the conse8"ences of its r"lin0,
."t insisted that it ,as for the le0islat"re and not the co"rts, to fashion a r"le a"thoriEin0
ser+ice of &rocess in this sit"ation(
Stafford v. Bri!!s 7U.S. 89>?<
Gissentin0 !&inions ?="stice 6te,artA: G"e &rocess re8"ires only certain 'ini'"'
contacts .et,een the defendant and the so+erei0n that has created the co"rt( $he iss"e is
not ,hether it is "nfair to re8"ire a defendant to ass"'e the ."rden of liti0atin0 in an
incon+enient for"', ."t rather ,hether the co"rt of a &artic"lar so+erei0n has &o,er to
e:ercise &ersonal 3"risdiction o+er a na'ed defendant( $he cases .efore "s in+ol+e s"its
a0ainst residents of the Bnited 6tates in the co"rts of the Bnited 6tates( @o d"e &rocess
&ro.le' e:ists(
6#ford 1irst Cor$. v. PNC 'i*uidatin! Cor$. 7".&. Pa. 89:@<
="d0e Cecker
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: Altho"0h federal stat"tes a"thoriEin0 e:tra-district ser+ice
of &rocess are not constrained .y the constit"tional strict"res defined in -nternational
6hoe, their a&&lication is li'ited .y f"nda'ental notions of /fairness1 deri+ed fro' the
G"e 5rocess *la"se of the >ifth A'end'ent( A'on0 the factors identified as rele+ant to
the /fairness1 in8"iry ,ere:
o $he e:tent of the defendantDs contacts ,ith the &lace ,here the action ,as
.ro"0ht(
o $he incon+enience of defendin0 in a distant for"'(
o ="dicial econo'y(
o $he &ro.a.le loc"s of disco+ery(
o $he interstate character and i'&act of the defendantDs acti+ities(
Notes
$he /'ini'"' contacts1 standard of -nternational 6hoe does a&&ly ,hen a federal co"rt,
&"rs"ant to R"le 4?kA?A resorts to the la, of the for"' state to ser+e &rocess on an o"t-
of-state defendant(
Section /: Challen!in! a CourtAs "#ercise of Jurisdiction over the Person or
Pro$ert
Squibs
&ata &isc- .nc. v. Sstems Technolo! Associates- .nc. 79
th
Cir. 89::<
o $he li'its ,hich the district 3"d0e i'&oses on the &re-trial &roceedin0s ,ill affect
the ."rden ,hich the &laintiff is re8"ired to 'eet to de'onstrate 3"risdiction(
o -f the co"rt ,ill recei+e only affida+its or affida+its &l"s disco+ery 'aterials,
these +ery li'itations dictate that the &laintiff '"st 'ake only a &ri'a facie
sho,in0 of 3"risdictional facts(
o <here the 3"risdictional facts are intert,ined ,ith the 'erits, a decision on the
3"risdictional iss"es is de&endent on a decision on the 'erits( -n s"ch a case, the
district co"rt co"ld deter'ine its 3"risdiction in a &lenary &retrial &roceedin0(
o At any ti'e ,hen the &laintiff a+oids a &reli'inary 'otion to dis'iss .y 'ain0 a
&ri'a facie sho,in0 of 3"risdictional facts, he '"st still &ro+e the 3"risdictional
facts at trial .y a &re&onderance of the e+idence(
Bald%in v. .o%a State Travelin! MenAs AssAn 7U.S. 89B8<
Holdin0: $hose ,ho ha+e contested an iss"e shall .e .o"nd .y the res"lt of the contestL
and that 'atters once tried shall .e considered fore+er settled as .et,een &arties( $h"s,
the +erdict a0ainst the defendant is enforcea.le "nder the f"ll faith and credit cla"se(
>acts: Gefendant cor&oration lost 'otion to dis'iss .ased on lack of 3"risdiction d"rin0
trial in #isso"ri co"rt( ="d0'ent ,as then entered a0ainst defendants and s"it ,as
.ro"0ht to -o,a to .e enforced( Gefendant atte'&ted to .rin0 a 'otion to dis'iss .ased
on #isso"riDs lack of 3"risdiction in the -o,a co"rt(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: $he Cald,in o&inion re&eats the esta.lished r"le that a
defendant ,ho 'akes no a&&earance ,hatsoe+er re'ains free to challen0e a defa"lt
3"d0'ent for ,ant of &ersonal 3"risdiction(
U.S. .ndustries- .nc. v. Gre!! 7&.&el. 89:B<
Holdin0: $he constit"tion does not re8"ire states to ha+e a 0eneral 3"risdiction as
o&&osed to a li'ited 3"risdiction r"le in cases ,here the &laintiff seeks to reco+er "nder
8"asi-in-re' 3"risdiction( $herefore, if the defendant defends a0ainst the 8"asi-in-re'
s"it on the 'erits, he 'ay create additional contacts that also 'ake hi' eli0i.le for in
&ersona' 3"risdiction(
>acts: Gefendant, a >lorida resident ,hose &ro&erty had .een se8"estered in Gela,are
,as ref"sed the ri0ht to 'ake a li'ited a&&earance and told that any 3"d0'ent the co"rt
'i0ht enter in fa+or of the &laintiff ,o"ld .e an in &ersona' on(
o $his *o"rt has already held that the ac8"isition of 8"asi-in-re' 3"risdiction .y
se8"estration is constit"tional(
o 5"t in Jre00Ds /contact1 ter'inolo0y, if he defends "&on the 'erits he has created
an additional relationshi& ,ith the for"' 3"risdictionL he is &resent in the fo"r'
co"rt to liti0ate the fact"al and le0al iss"es "&on ,hich the clai' t"rns( $his is
s"fficient contact to &er'it the co"rt to ad3"dicate that +ery clai' once and for all(
Notes
-t see's that the ar0"'ent in Jre00 atte'&ts to create ri0htness .y 'akin0 an analo0y to
a case ,here incon+enience is tolerated(
Chapter 3: Providin !otice and an Opportunity to "e #eard
Section A: The 3e*uirement of 3easona)le Notice
1ullane v. "entral Hanover 7ank - >rust "o. (U.S. 19&6)
Justice Jackson
+oldin!: <e hold the notice of 3"dicial settle'ent of acco"nts re8"ired .y the @e, Nork
Cankin0 7a, is inco'&ati.le ,ith the re8"ire'ents of the >o"rteenth A'end'ent as a
.asis for ad3"dication de&ri+in0 kno,n &ersons ,hose ,herea.o"ts are also kno,n of
s".stantial &ro&erty ri0hts( $his is not .eca"se it fails to reach e+eryone, ."t .eca"se
"nder the circ"'stances it is not reasona.ly calc"lated to reach those ,ho co"ld easily .e
infor'ed .y other 'eans at hand( Re+ersed(
1acts: -n 946, defendant esta.lished a consolidated tr"st f"nd in accordance ,ith @e,
Nork .ankin0 la,s( -n #arch 94), it &etitioned the 6"rro0ateDs *o"rt for settle'ent of
its first acco"nt as co''on tr"stee( $he only notice 0i+en .eneficiaries of this s&ecific
a&&lication for 3"dicial settle'ent of the acco"nt ,as &".lication in a local ne,s&a&er in
strict co'&liance ,ith the 'ini'"' re8"ire'ents of .ankin0 la,( Ceneficiaries had
&re+io"sly recei+ed a notice fro' the defendant .y 'ail that incl"ded a co&y of the
&ro+isions of the Act relatin0 to the sendin0 of the notice and the 3"dicial settle'ent of
co''on tr"st f"nd acco"nts(
Procedural +istor: $he a&&ellant, re&resentin0 "nkno,n 'e'.ers of the tr"st f"nd
that 'i0ht ha+e an interest in inco'e fro' the f"nd, a&&eared s&ecially o.3ectin0 to the
notice( His 'otion ,as entertained and o+err"led .y the 6"rro0ate *o"rt( $hat *o"rtDs
decision ,as then affir'ed .y the state A&&ellate Gi+ision and the *o"rt of A&&eals(
Precedents:
o Citing Jannis +( !rdean ?B(6(A: $he f"nda'ental re8"isite of d"e &rocess of la,
is the o&&ort"nity to .e heard(
o <hate+er the technical definition of its chosen &roced"re, the interest of each
state in &ro+idin0 'eans to close tr"sts that e:ist .y the 0race of its la,s and are
ad'inistered "nder the s"&er+ision of its co"rts is so insistent and rooted in
c"sto' as to esta.lish .eyond do".t the ri0ht of its co"rts to deter'ine the
interests of all clai'ants, resident or nonresident, &ro+ided its &roced"re accords
f"ll o&&ort"nity to a&&ear and .e heard( A constr"ction of the G"e 5rocess *la"se
,hich ,o"ld &lace i'&ossi.le or i'&ractical o.stacles in the ,ay co"ld not .e
3"stified(
o 5ersonal ser+ice has not in all circ"'stances .een re0arded as indis&ensa.le to the
&rocess d"e to residents, and it has 'ore often .een held "nnecessary as to
nonresidents(
o $he reasona.leness and hence the constit"tional +alidity of any chosen 'ethod
'ay .e defended on the 0ro"nd that it is in itself reasona.ly certain to infor'
those affected, or, ,here conditions do not reasona.ly &er'it s"ch notice, that the
for' chosen is not s".stantially less likely to .rin0 ho'e notice than other of the
feasi.le and c"sto'ary s".stit"tes(
o $his co"rt has not hesitated to a&&ro+e of resort to &".lication in the case of
&ersons 'issin0 or "nkno,n, e'&loy'ent of an indirect and e+en a &ro.a.ly
f"tile 'eans of notification is all that the sit"ation &er'its and creates no
constit"tional .ar to a final decree foreclosin0 their ri0hts(
o @or do ,e consider it "nreasona.le for the 6tate to dis&ense ,ith 'ore certain
notice to those .eneficiaries ,hose interests are either con3ect"ral or f"t"re or,
altho"0h they co"ld .e disco+ered "&on in+esti0ation, do not in d"e co"rse of
."siness co'e to kno,led0e of the co''on tr"stee(
o 9:ce&tions in the na'e of necessity do not s,ee& a,ay the r"le that ,ithin the
li'its of &ractica.ility notice '"st .e s"ch as is reasona.ly calc"lated to reach
interested &arties(
o $his ty&e of tr"st &res"&&oses a lar0e n"'.er of s'all interests( $he indi+id"al
interest does not stand alone ."t is identical ,ith that of a class( $he ri0hts of
each in the inte0rity of the f"nd and the fidelity of the tr"stee are shared .y 'any
other .eneficiaries( $herefore notice reasona.ly certain to reach 'ost of those
interested in o.3ectin0 is likely to safe0"ard the interests of all(
o @one(
Notes
-tDs i'&ortant to note that #"llane, re&resentin0 the reci&ients of inco'e fro' the f"nd,
has different interests than Va"0han, re&resentin0 the interests in the &rinci&al( 5rinci&al
has to &ay for the notice(
G"e 5rocess is al,ays a .alance ha+in0 to do ,ith the interests of the &arties and the
reso"rces a+aila.le(
Section &: 6$$ortunit to )e +eard.
=uentes v. S!evin
Justice Ste%art
+oldin!: <e hold that the >lorida and 5ennsyl+ania &re3"d0'ent re&le+in &ro+isions
,ork a de&ri+ation of &ro&erty ,itho"t d"e &rocess of la, insofar as they deny the ri0ht
to a &rior o&&ort"nity to .e heard .efore chattels are taken fro' their &ossessor M <e do
not 8"estion the &o,er of a 6tate to seiEe 0oods .efore a final 3"d0'ent in order to
&rotect the sec"rity interests of creditors so lon0 as those creditors ha+e tested their clai'
to the 0oods thro"0h the &rocess of a fair &rior hearin0( Vacated and re'anded(
1acts: *o'.ination of cases in >lorida and 5ennsyl+ania( -n 0eneral, &laintiffs
&"rchased ite's on a &ay'ent &lan( 6o'e sort of dis&"te e'er0ed o+er the ite's and the
&laintiffs ref"sed to &ay the re'ainder of their &ay'ents( $he sellers then 'o+ed in
s'all clai's co"rt for re&ossession and o.tained ,rits of re&le+in .efore the &laintiffs
had ti'e to ans,er the co'&laints( Bnder >lorida la,, the &arty seekin0 a ,rit of
re&le+in doesnDt ha+e to 'ake a con+incin0 sho,in0L re&le+in is 0ranted on the sole .asis
of the co'&laint and a .ond( $he defendant a0ainst a ,rit of re&le+in has no o&&ort"nity
for a hearin0 "ntil after the &ro&erty is seiEed( 5ennsyl+ania la, is essentially the sa'e,
e:ce&t that it does not re8"ire that the defendant ,ill e+er ha+e a chance to ha+e a
hearin0 of the 'erits(
Procedural +istor: Coth >lorida and 5ennsyl+ania cases ,ere .ro"0ht to 6"&re'e
*o"rt on 0ro"nds of G"e 5rocess +iolations(
Precedents:
o Citing Cald,in +( Hale ?B(6(A: 5arties ,hose ri0hts are to .e affected are entitled
to .e heardL and in order that they 'ay en3oy that ri0ht they '"st .e notified(
o Citing Ar'stron0 +( #anEo ?B(6(A: @otice and o&&ort"nity to .e heard '"st .e
0ranted at a 'eanin0f"l ti'e and in a 'eanin0f"l 'anner(
o Citing =oint Anti->ascist Ref"0ee *o''ittee +( #cJrath ?B(6(A: >airness can
rarely .e o.tained .y secret, one-sided deter'ination of facts decisi+e of ri0hts(
And no .etter instr"'ent has .een de+ised for arri+in0 at tr"th than to 0i+e a
&erson in 3eo&ardy of serio"s loss notice of the case a0ainst hi' and o&&ort"nity
to 'eet it(
o Citing 6tanley +( -llinois ?B(6(A: @o later hearin0 and no da'a0e a,ard can "ndo
the fact that the ar.itrary takin0 that ,as s".3ect to the ri0ht of &roced"ral d"e
&rocess has already occ"rred( $his *o"rt has not e'.raced the 0eneral
&ro&osition that a ,ron0 'ay .e done if it can .e "ndone(
o Distinguishing #"llane +( *entral Hano+er ?B(6(A: Altho"0h the *o"rt has held
that d"e &rocess tolerates +ariances in the for' of a hearin0 a&&ro&riate to the
nat"re of the case and de&endin0 "&on the i'&ortance of the interests in+ol+ed
and the nat"re of the s".se8"ent &roceedin0s, the *o"rt has traditionally insisted
that, ,hate+er its for', o&&ort"nity for that hearin0 '"st .e &ro+ided .efore the
de&ri+ation at iss"e takes effect(
o Citing Coddie +( *onnectic"t ?B(6(A: $here are /e:traordinary sit"ations1 that
3"stify &ost&onin0 notice and o&&ort"nity for a hearin0 M only in a fe, li'ited
sit"ations has this *o"rt allo,ed o"tri0ht seiE"re M >irst, the seiE"re has .een
directly necessary to sec"re an i'&ortant 0o+ern'ental or 0eneral &".lic interest(
6econd, there has .een a s&ecial need for +ery &ro'&t action( $hird, the 6tate has
ke&t strict control o+er tis 'ono&oly of le!itimate force.
o $he re8"ire'ent that a &arty seekin0 a ,rit '"st first &ost a .ond M is hardly a
s".stit"te for a &rior hearin0, for it tests no 'ore than the stren0th of the
a&&licantDs o,n .elief in his ri0hts(
o $he 'ini'al deterrent effect of a .ond re8"ire'ent is, in a &ractical sense, no
s".stit"te for an infor'ed e+al"ation .y a ne"tral official( As a 'atter of
constit"tional &rinci&le, it is no re&lace'ent for the ri0ht to a &rior hearin0 that is
the only tr"ly effecti+e safe0"ard a0ainst ar.itrary de&ri+ation of &ro&erty(
o -t is no, ,ell settled that a te'&orary, nonfinal de&ri+ation of &ro&erty is
nonetheless a /de&ri+ation1 in the ter's of the >o"rteenth A'end'ent(
o A ,ai+er of constit"tional ri0hts Has in a contract callin0 for foreclos"re for non-
&ay'entI in any conte:t '"st, at the +ery least, .e clear( $he contract"al
lan0"a0e relied "&on '"st, on its face, a'o"nt to a ,ai+er(
&issentin! 6$inions 7J. ,hite<:
o Gollar and cents considerations ,ei0h hea+ily a0ainst false clai's of defa"lt as
,ell as a0ainst &reci&itate action that ,o"ld allo, no o&&ort"nity for 'istakes to
s"rface and .e corrected(
o - ,o"ld not i0nore, as the *o"rt does, the creditorDs interest in &re+entin0 f"rther
"se and deterioration of the &ro&erty in ,hich he has s".stantial interest(
o $he res"lt reached .y the co"rt ,ill ha+e little i'&act: creditors co"ld ,ithstand
attack "nder todayDs o&inion si'&ly .y 'akin0 clear in the controllin0 credit
instr"'ents that they 'ay retake &ossession ,itho"t a hearin0, or, for that 'atter,
,itho"t resort to 3"dicial &rocess at all(
Squibs
Sniadach v. 1amil 1inance Cor$. 7U.S. 89C9<
Holdin0: A <isconsin &re3"d0'ent ,a0e 0arnish'ent &roced"re +iolated d"e &rocess
.eca"se it i'&osed an "nacce&ta.le hardshi& on ,a0e earners ,ith fa'ilies to s"&&ort(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: <here the takin0 of oneDs &ro&erty is so o.+io"s, it needs no
e:tended ar0"'ent to concl"de that a.sent notice and a &rior hearin0, this &re3"d0'ent
0arnish'ent &roced"re +iolates the f"nda'ental &rinci&les of d"e &rocess(
Mitchell v. ,.T. Grant Co. 7U.S. 89:@<
="stice <hite
Holdin0: Bnlike the stat"tes str"ck do,n in >"entes, in 7o"isiana the facts rele+ant to
o.tainin0 a ,rit of se8"estration are narro,ly confined( $here is th"s far less dan0er here
that the seiE"re ,ill .e 'istaken and a corres&ondin0 decrease in the "tility of an
ad+ersary hearin0 ,hich ,ill .e i''ediately a+aila.le in any e+ent( !"r concl"sion is
that the 7o"isiana standards re0"latin0 the "se of the ,rit of se8"estration are
constit"tional(
>acts: A 7o"isiana state trial 3"d0e ordered se8"estration of 0oods .o"0ht on an
install'ent &lan( 7o"isiana stat"es &ro+ide for se8"estration ,here /one clai's the
o,nershi& or ri0ht to &ossession of &ro&erty M if it is ,ithin the &o,er of the defendant
to conceal, dis&ose of, or ,aste the &ro&erty d"rin0 the &endency of the action(
5recedents:
o Distinguishing 6niadach +( >a'ily >inance *or&(: -n 6niadach, the s"in0 creditor
had no &rior interest in the &ro&erty attached, and the o&inion did not &"r&ort to
0o+ern the ty&ical case of the install'ent seller(
o Distinguishing >"entes +( 6he+in: Bnder the >lorida and 5ennsyl+ania stat"tes,
&ro&erty co"ld .e re&le+ied if it had .een ,ron0f"lly detained( $his ,as too
.road a standard(
o Key .enefits of the stat"te incl"de the fact that ,rits '"st .e a&&ro+e .y a 3"d0e,
a .ond '"st .e iss"ed, and there is i''ediate o&&ort"nity for a hearin0 so the
de.tor can seek dissol"tion of the ,rit( $he de.tor 'ay 0et .ack his &ro&erty for
the interi' .y filin0 a .ond to &rotect the creditor a0ainst interi' da'a0e to the
&ro&erty(
Gissentin0 !&inion ?="stice 6te,artA:
o #itchell co'&letely o+err"led >"entes, ,itho"t any chan0e in societal +al"es,
denyin0 the &rinci&le of stare decisis(
Notes
<hite, dissent in >"entes and ,ritin0 for the 'a3ority in #itchell, said that the t,o cases
co"ld .e reconciled(
-s it of constit"tional si0nificance that the &erson ,ho si0ns the ,rit is a 3"d0e rather than
a clerk(
Nort! 'eor$ia =inis!in$: n*. v. 3i4"!e): n*. (U.S. 197&)
Justice ,hite
+oldin!: $he standards that 0o+ern d"e &rocess for install'ent cons"'ers also 0o+ern
cor&orate .ank acco"nts( $herefore, the sa'e test of d"e &rocess as in >"entes and
#itchell a&&lies here( $he 3"d0'ent of the Jeor0ia 6"&re'e *o"rt is re+ersed(
1acts: Res&ondent had filed s"it a0ainst &etitioner, alle0in0 that &etitioner o,ed it
P5,2)9 for 0oods sold and deli+ered( Bnder Jeor0ia stat"te, &laintiffs in &endin0 s"its
are /entitled to the &rocess of 0arnish'ent( $o e'&loy the &rocess, &laintiff or attorney
'"st 'ake an affida+it .efore so'e officer a"thoriEed to iss"e an attach'ent, statin0 the
a'o"nt d"e and that he has reason to a&&rehend the loss of the sa'e or so'e &art thereof
"nless &rocess of 0arnish'ent shall iss"e( $he stat"te also re8"ires the &laintiff to file a
.ond in a s"' do".le the a'o"nt s,orn to .e d"e(
Procedural +istor: A&&eal fro' the Jeor0ia 6"&re'e *o"rt(
Precedents:
o Analyzing >"entes +( 6he+in: Ceca"se the official seiE"res had .een carried o"t
,itho"t notice and ,itho"t o&&ort"nity for a hearin0 or other safe0"ard a0ainst
'istaken re&ossession, they ,ere held to .e in +iolation of the >o"rteenth
A'end'ent(
o Distinguishing #itchell +( <($( Jrant *o(: Bnlike the 7o"isiana stat"te, the ,rit
'ay .e a&&ro+ed .y a clerk, the affida+it 'ay .e filed .y co"nsel for the creditor
2 ,ho ,o"ld not ha+e first-hand kno,led0e of the de.t, and there is no &ro+ision
for an early hearin0(
o <hile cor&orations 'ay not s"ffer as '"ch as cons"'ers ?as in >"entesA, they are
still entitled to the sa'e &rotections and the sa'e standards( $he &ro.a.ility of
irre&ara.le in3"ry in the case of cor&orations is s"fficiently 0reat that so'e
&roced"res are necessary to 0"ard a0ainst the risk of initial error(
o @one(
"onne*ti*ut v. 3oe!r (U.S. 1991)
Justice ,hite
+oldin!: Ceca"se *onnectic"tDs &re3"d0'ent re'edy &ro+ision +iolates the
re8"ire'ents of d"e &rocess .y a"thoriEin0 &re3"d0'ent attach'ent ,itho"t &rior notice
or a hearin0, the 3"d0'ent of the *o"rt of A&&eals is affir'ed and the case is re'anded
to that co"rt for f"rther &roceedin0s consistent ,ith this o&inion(
1acts: 5etitioner GiJio+anni acc"sed res&ondent Goehr of assa"ltin0 hi' and s"ed hi'
in *onnectic"t state co"rt( -n a &retrial 'otion, GiJio+anni attached GoehrDs ho"se
"nder *onnectic"tDs &re3"d0'ent re'edy stat"te( $his stat"te allo,s a 3"d0e or co"rt to
allo, a &re3"d0'ent re'edy ,itho"t a hearin0 "&on +erification .y oath of the &laintiff
or of so'e co'&etent affiant, that there is &ro.a.le ca"se to s"stain the +alidity of the
&laintiffDs clai's( $he stat"te only a&&lies to real &ro&erty( $he &laintiff is not re8"ired
to &ost .ail(
Procedural +istor: Goehr s"ed GiJio+anni in >ederal Gistrict *o"rt, clai'in0 the
*onnectic"t stat"te +iolated his constit"tional ri0hts( Gistrict *o"rt iss"ed s"''ary
3"d0'ent for GiJio+anni( Goehr a&&ealed to *o"rt of A&&eals, ,hich "&held Gistrict
*o"rt( Goehr then a&&ealed to the 6"&re'e *o"rt(
Precedents:
o Analyzing #athe,s +( 9ldrid0e ?B(6( 9)6A: >or the 0o+ern'ent to de&ri+e a
&ri+ate citiEen of &ro&erty ,itho"t trial, co"rts '"st a&&ly a three-&art test:
( *onsideration of the &ri+ate interest that ,ill .e affected .y the official
action(
2( *onsideration of the risk of an erroneo"s 3"d0'ent and the &ro.a.ly +al"e
of additional safe0"ards(
3( *onsideration of the 0o+ern'entDs interest, incl"din0 the f"nction
in+ol+ed and the fiscal and ad'inistrati+e ."rdens that the additional or
s".stit"te &roced"ral re8"ire'ents ,o"ld entail(
o Distinguishing #itchell +( <($( Jrant *o(: -n #itchell, the risk of error in &retrial
re'edy ,as 'ini'al .eca"se reco+ery in+ol+ed "nco'&licated 'atters like
reco+ery of a lien and the &laintiff ,as re8"ired to &"t "& a .ond( @one of these
factors di'inish the need for a &rede&ri+ation hearin0 in the &resent case(
o -n dis&"tes .et,een &ri+ate &arties, the test is '"ch like that in #atthe,s, e:ce&t
that in contract to #atthe,s, the third factor considers &rinci&ally the interest of
the &arty seekin0 the &re3"d0'ent action and secondarily the interests of the
0o+ern'ent in efficiency, etc(
o $he attach'ent of real &ro&erty is a de&ri+ation s"fficient to 'erit d"e &rocess
&rotection, es&ecially since it 'i0ht affect the defendantDs credit, the stat"s of his
'ort0a0e, etc(
o $he risk of erroneo"s de&ri+ation is s".stantial: all that is re8"ired of the affida+it
is that the &laintiff sho,s a 0ood faith .elief that the s"it ,ill s"cceed(
o -t doesnDt 'atter ,hether a 3"d0e re+ie,s the a&&lication for a ,rit in this case,
.eca"se she ,o"ldnDt .e a.le to 'ake a realistic assess'ent of the actionDs
likelihood of s"ccess .ased on the infor'ation &ro+ided .y the &laintiff(
o A.sent any alle0ations that the defendant ,as 0oin0 to transfer or enc"'.er his
real estate, the &laintiffDs interests arenDt s"fficient to 3"stify the ."rden to the
defendant(
o @o interests of the 0o+ern'ent affect this analysis 2 the interest of &rotectin0 the
ri0hts of the &laintiff canDt .e 0reater to the 0o+ern'ent than to the &laintiff
hi'self(
o Conds are an i'&ortant tool in stat"tes that adhere to d"e &rocess and &erha&s
sho"ld .e re8"ired( C"t they are not s"fficient in the'sel+es( -f a .ond cannot
ser+e to dis&ense ,ith a hearin0 i''ediately after attach'ent, neither is it
s"fficient .asis for not &ro+idin0 a &reattach'ent hearin0 in the a.sence of
e:i0ent circ"'stances( A ,ron0f"l in3"ry cannot .e redressed thro"0h the .ond(
Concurrin! 6$inions 73ehn*uist<:
o *onnectic"tDs stat"te does not de&ri+e the defendant of the "se of the &ro&erty 2
th"s the defendantDs interests are in less dan0er(
o $he re8"ire'ent of a .ond in the a.stract 'eans little if ,e donDt kno, its ter's
and conditions(
Notes
Hershkoff asked "s to think of this in the conte:t of 6haffner +( Heiter( <hat does this
'ean4
$he dissent &oints to a &ossi.le f"t"re distinction in these cases .et,een chattel and real
&ro&erty(
-n li0ht of the cases ,e ha+e 3"st read, ,hat is the stat"s of &re-action attach'ent to
create 8"asi-in-re' 3"risdiction4 -s the a+aila.ility of in &ersona' 3"risdiction rele+ant to
yo"r ans,er4
Chapter $: Jurisdiction over the Su"%ect &atter of the Action ' the
Court(s Co)petency
Section A. Su)Dect(Matter Jurisdiction in State Courts
2a*ks v. 2a*ks (N? ". of (. 197/)
Chief Jud!e Breitel
+oldin!: Ges&ite her characteriEation of s".3ect 'atter 3"risdiction to "ndo a final
3"d0'ent of fo"r yearsD standin0, the defects to ,hich she &oints relate only to
s".stanti+e ele'ents in a ca"se of action ad3"dica.le .y the 6"&re'e *o"rt, a co"rt
co'&etent to decide all s".stanti+e iss"es( Accordin0ly, the order of the A&&ellate
Gi+ision sho"ld .e affir'ed, ,itho"t costs(
1acts: $he &arties ,ere 'arried in @e, Nork in 938( $he h"s.and ,as 0ranted a
3"d0'ent of di+orce on #arch 6, 9)% and that s".stanti+e final 3"d0'ent ,as .eyond
f"rther re+ie,(
Procedural +istor: $,o years after the final 3"d0'ent, the ,ife a&&ealed on the
0ro"nds that .eca"se the co"&le hadnDt 'et the re8"ire'ent of residency, the co"rt did
not ha+e 3"risdiction to iss"e the di+orce and the action of di+orce sho"ld .e +acated(
Precedents:
o Citing $hrasher +( Bnited 6tates 7ia.( -ns( *o(: $his co"rt dre, a clear distinction
.et,een a co"rtDs co'&etence to entertain an action and its &o,er to render a
3"d0'ent on the 'erits( A.sence of co'&etence to entertain an action de&ri+es
the co"rt of s".3ect 'atter 3"risdictionL a.sence of &o,er to reach the 'erits does
not(
o Distinguishing 6ection 23% of the Go'estic Relations 7a,: -t &ro+ides that /an
action for di+orce on se&aration 'ay .e 'aintained only ,hen1 the residence
re8"ire'ents are 'et(
o Any error of la, or fact ,hich 'i0ht ha+e .een co''itted in the di+orce action
did not de&ri+e the co"rt of 3"risdiction to ad3"dicate the case(
o $he o+erly stated &rinci&le that lack of s".3ect 'atter 3"risdiction 'akes the final
3"d0'ent a.sol"tely +oid is not a&&lica.le to cases ,hich, "&on analysis, do not
in+ol+e 3"risdiction, ."t 'erely s".stanti+e ele'ents of a ca"se for relief(
o @one(
Squibs
+u!hes v. 1etter 7U.S. 89E8<
Holdin0: <isconsin 'ay not close its co"rts to a ,ron0f"l death s"it arisin0 "nder an
-llinois stat"te in the a.sence of a +alid <isconsin &olicy to ,ei0h a0ainst the national
interest fa+orin0 the a+aila.ility of a <isconsin for"'(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: A state cannot esca&e its constit"tional o.li0ation to enforce
the ri0hts and d"ties +alidly created "nder the la,s of other states .y the si'&le de+ice of
re'o+in0 3"risdiction fro' co"rts other,ise co'&etent(
+o%lett v. 3ose 7U.S. 899?<
Holdin0: >lorida 'ay not dis'iss a federal ca"se of action in state co"rt on the 0ro"nds
of state so+erei0n i''"nity(
>acts: 5laintiff, a for'er hi0h school st"dent, s"ed the local school .oard for +iolatin0
his constit"tional ri0hts .y searchin0 his car and s"s&endin0 hi' ,itho"t d"e &rocess(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: A state &olicy of not reco0niEin0 federal actions in state
co"rt .y ref"sal to 0i+e state co"rts s".3ect 'atter 3"risdiction o+er the' flatly +iolates
the 6"&re'acy *la"se(
Notes
6".3ect 'atter 3"risdiction in the state syste' is deter'ined .y state constit"tions and
stat"tes(
6".3ect 'atter 3"risdiction is not self-e:ec"tin0(
6tate co"rts can hear any case ,here *on0ress hasnDt conferred e:cl"si+e 3"risdiction to
federal co"rts ?e(0( anti-tr"st, @7RAA or certain *onstit"tionally &rohi.ited cases
?ad'iralty dis&"tes .et,een states, etc(A
-t is the o.li0ation of the co"rt to deter'ine ,hether it has s".3ect 'atter 3"risdiction(
$he &arties cannot consent to or confer s".3ect 'atter 3"risdiction on a co"rt( 7i'its
i'&osed on co"rts &rotect instit"tions of 0o+ern'ent(
-f a co"rt has 3"risdiction to decide a di+orce, its 3"risdiction is not taken a,ay if it t"rns
o"t that the &arties do not 'eet the re8"ire'ents for di+orce(
Hershkoff says: $he residence &ro+ision ,ent to the heart of the definition of di+orce
?does she 8"estion the co"rtDs r"lin04A(
Section B: The Su)Dect Matter Jurisdiction of the 1ederal Courts 2 &iversit
of Citi0enshi$
Squibs
Stra%)rid!e v. Curtiss 7U.S. 8>?C<
="stice #arshall
Holdin0: $here is no di+ersity 3"risdiction if any &laintiff is a citiEen of the sa'e state as
any defendant, no 'atter ho, 'any &arties are in+ol+ed in the liti0ation(
Bank of the United States v. &eveau# 7U.S. 8>?9<
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: Ho,e+er tr"e the fact 'ay .e, that the tri."nals of the states
,ill ad'inister 3"stice as i'&artially as those of the nation, it is not less tr"e that the
constit"tion itself either entertains a&&rehensions on this s".3ect, or +ie,s ,ith s"ch
ind"l0ence the &ossi.le fears and a&&rehensions of s"itors, that it has esta.lished national
tri."nals for the decision of contro+ersies .et,een citiEens of different states(
Notes
$here are fi+e &ro.le's res"ltin0 fro' the creation of di+ersity 3"risdiction:
( *on0estion these cases ca"se in federal co"rts(
2( A&&lication of state la, to s".stanti+e iss"es in di+ersity cases .y federal 3"d0es is
"nnecessary, ,astef"l, and ina&&ro&riate(
3( ="dicial and le0islati+e a"thority sho"ld .e coe:tensi+e 2 for federal co"rts to decide
cases arisin0 "nder case la, interferes ,ith state a"tono'y(
4( >ederal liti0ation of state iss"es retards the 0ro,th of state co''on la,(
5( Gi'inishes the incenti+es for state co"rt refor'(
!n the other hand, di+ersity 3"risdiction is necessary in order to i'&le'ent the
constit"tional 0"arantee that the citiEens of each state shall .e entitled to all the &ri+ile0es
and i''"nities of citiEens of the se+eral states(
>"rther ar0"'ent for di+ersity: federal co"rts are 8"alitati+ely s"&erior in ter's of their
&rofessionalis' and intellect"al tone( $h"s, it is desira.le to channel as 'any cases into
federal co"rt as &ossi.le(
$here ha+e .een lon0 &eriods ,hen &roced"ral differences ha+e led to s"s&icion that the
federal co"rts are rich &eo&leDs co"rts or defendantsD co"rts(
$he coe:istence of t,o syste's 'ay create co'&etition leadin0 to hi0her standards for
.oth(
Ho,e+er, for"' sho&&in0 see's 'ore an a."se of conc"rrent 3"risdiction than an
ar0"'ent for it .eca"se it allo,s &arties to act strate0ically(
$here are t,o i'&ortant areas, &ro.ate 'atters and do'estic relations cases, in ,hich
3"dicially created e:ce&tions to the stat"te &ro+ide that the federal co"rts ,ill not act e+en
tho"0h di+ersity is &resent(
1as v. Perry (&
t!
"ir. 197%)
C.J. Ains%orth
+oldin!: Bnder section 332?aA?2A of B(6(*( title 28, federal 3"dicial &o,er e:tends to
the clai' of #r( #as, a citiEen of >rance, a0ainst the a&&ellant, a citiEen of 7o"isiana(
Ceca"se #rs( #as is considered a citiEen of #ississi&&i for di+ersity &"r&oses, the
district co"rt also &ro&erly had 3"risdiction "nder section 332?aA?A of her clai'(
1acts: A&&ellees =ean 5a"l #as, a citiEen of >rance, and ="dy #as ,ere 'arried at her
ho'e in =ackson, #ississi&&i( 5rior to their 'arria0e, they ,ere 0rad"ate st"dents at
7o"isiana 6tate Bni+ersity( $hey re'ained in Caton Ro"0e for t,o years after their
'arria0e and then 'o+ed to 5ark Rid0e, -llinois( At the ti'e of the trial, they intended to
ret"rn to Caton Ro"0e so #r( #as co"ld finish his 5h(G( <hile they ,ere li+in0 in Caton
Ro"0e after their 'arria0e, their landlord, a resident of 7o"isiana, s&ied on the' thro"0h
t,o-,ay 'irrors in their .edroo' and .athroo'( $hey s"ed hi' in federal district co"rt(
$he defendant a&&ealed on 0ro"nds of lack of di+ersity 3"risdiction(
Procedural +istor: A&&eal fro' district co"rt(
Precedents:
o Citing 6tra,.rid0e +( *"rtiss ?B(6( 8%6A: *o'&lete di+ersity of &arties is
re8"ired to s"stain di+ersity 3"risdiction(
o Gi+erse 3"risdiction .et,een the &arties is re8"ired at the ti'e that the co'&laint
is filed(
o >or di+ersity &"r&oses, citiEenshi& 'eans do'icileL 'ere residence in a 6tate is
not s"fficient(
o A chan0e of do'icile 'ay .e effected only .y the co'.ination of t,o ele'ents:
?aA takin0 "& residence in a different do'icile ,ith ?.A the intention to re'ain
there(
o An A'erican ,o'an is not dee'ed to ha+e lost her B(6( citiEenshi& solely .y
reason of her 'arria0e to an alien( 6i'ilarly, for di+ersity &"r&oses a ,o'an
does not ha+e her do'icile or 6tate citiEenshi& chan0ed solely .y reason of her
'arria0e to an alien(
o $ho"0h #rs( #as had no intention of ret"rnin0 to #ississi&&i, she ,as still not
considered to .e do'iciled in 7o"isiana .eca"se she and her h"s.and ,ere only
st"dents there and lacked the re8"isite intention to stay there(
o <e also note the &ro&riety of ha+in0 the federal district co"rt entertain a s&o"seDs
action, e+en if the s&o"se isnDt di+erse, ,here the district co"rt already has
3"risdiction o+er a clai', arisin0 fro' the sa'e transaction, .y the other s&o"se
a0ainst the sa'e defendant(
o @one(
Squibs
China Nuclear "ner! .ndus. Cor$. v. Andersen- ''P 7&. Colo. 899><
Holdin0: 28 B(6(*( 332?aA does not &er'it an alien cor&oration to s"e a &artnershi&
'ade "& of .oth B(6( citiEens and &er'anent resident aliens(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: Jrantin0 di+ersity 3"risdiction ,o"ld contra+ene Article
---Ds 0rant of constit"tional a"thority and the co'&lete di+ersity r"le(
Blair +oldin!s Cor$. v. 3u)instein 7S.&.N.F. 89EE<
Holdin0: >or a &arty to .e considered an alien, the co"rt '"st ha+e &roof that it is a
citiEen of another co"ntry( $he defendant, ,ho had re0istered as a stateless &erson ,ith
the 6tate Ge&art'ent, co"ld not .e s"ed in federal co"rt(
/ramer v. Cari))ean Mills- .nc. 7U.S. 89C9<
Holdin0: Assi0n'ents of interest in s"its for the sake of satisfyin0 di+ersity 3"risdiction
'ay not .e 'ade ,ithin the 'eanin0 of 28 B(6(*( 359(
3ose v. Giamatti 7S.&.6hio 89>9<
Holdin0: $he Gistrict *o"rt 'ay esta.lish di+ersity 3"risdiction if the &rinci&al ?non-
for'al or non-no'inalA &arties are co'&letely di+erse(
>acts: Rose, an !hio resident, ,as s"in0 in state co"rt for a te'&orary restrainin0 order
o+er Jia'atti( He added other &arties located in !hio to the s"it( Jia'atti asked to
re'o+e to federal co"rt(
o A federal co"rt in its deter'ination of ,hether there is di+ersity of citiEenshi&
.et,een the &arties '"st disre0ard no'inal or for'al &arties to the action, and
deter'ine 3"risdiction .ased solely "&on the citiEenshi& of the real &arties to the
contro+ersy(
Notes
$he *irc"it *o"rts "se three different tests to deter'ine a cor&orationDs &rinci&al &lace of
."siness:
( @er+e *enter $est: loc"s of cor&orate decision-'akin0(
2( *or&orate Acti+ities or !&eratin0 Assets $est: <here the &rod"ction or ser+ice
acti+ities are located(
3( $otal Acti+ity $est: Hy.rid of ner+e center and cor&orate acti+ities tests( #ore
fle:i.le and less for'"laic(
(.=.(. >ours: n*. v. #!ite*!ur*! (2
n,
"ir. 1991)
C.J. /earse
+oldin!: $he record as it e:isted in the district co"rt did not &er'it the co"rt to find ,ith
le0al certainty that the +al"e of A>ADs clai's did not e:ceed P5%,%%%(
1acts: 5laintiff A>A o&erates a to"r ."siness( Gefendant ,as e'&loyee of &laintiff and
,as acc"sed of stealin0 a client list in order to or0aniEe his o,n to"rs( $he client list ,as
considered a trade secret( 5laintiff s"ed for in3"ncti+e relief( Gistrict co"rt dis'issed the
co'&laint on the 0ro"nd that it ,o"ld not .e &ossi.le for A>A to &ro+e da'a0es
a'o"ntin0 to 'ore than P5%,%%%(
Procedural +istor: A&&eal fro' district co"rt(
Precedents:
o Citing 6t(5a"l #erc"ry -nde'nity *o( +( Red *a. *o( ?B(6( 938A: $he r"le
0o+ernin0 dis'issal for ,ant of 3"risdiction in cases .ro"0ht in the federal co"rt
is that, "nless the la, 0i+es a different r"le, the s"' clai'ed .y the &laintiff
controls if the clai' is a&&arently 'ade in 0ood faith( -t '"st a&&ear to a le0al
certainty that the clai' is really for less than the 3"risdictional a'o"nt to 3"stify a
dis'issal(
o $he a'o"nt of da'a0es reco+era.le in an action for 'isa&&ro&riate of trade
secrets 'ay .e 'eas"red either .y the &laintiffDs losses, or .y the &rofits "n3"stly
recei+ed .y the defendant( -n addition, &"niti+e da'a0es 'ay .e incl"ded if
&er'itted(
o <here the &laintiff seeks in3"ncti+e relief, the +al"e of his clai' is 0enerally
assessed ,ith reference to the ri0ht he seeks to &rotect M in calc"latin0 the
i'&air'ent to his ri0hts, the co"rt 'ay look at &ast losses and &otential har'(
o *o"rt '"st afford &laintiff a reasona.le o&&ort"nity to sho, 0ood faith in
.elie+in0 the reco+ery threshold is &ossi.le to reach(
o @one(
Squibs
Arnold v. Troccoli 7;
nd
Cir. 89CE<
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: 6tatistics "sed to deter'ine a+era0e 3"d0'ent for clai's of
the 0i+en ty&e ?i(e( &ersonal in3"ry fro' car accidentA(
McCart v. Amoco Pi$eline Co. 7:
th
Cir. 89:9<
Holdin0: $he +al"e of an in3"nction to the &laintiff sho"ld .e considered the standard to
deter'ine ,hether federal 3"risdiction is &resent(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: -n in3"ncti+e relief cases, the +al"e of the re'edy ?e(0( a
restrainin0 orderA can .e tho"0ht of in ter's of the &laintiffDs +ie,&oint or the
defendantDs(
Gissentin0 !&inions ?Jeneral *o''entA: !ther co"rts ha+e +ie,ed the a'o"nt in
contro+ersy fro' the &ers&ecti+e of the &arty seekin0 to in+oke federal 3"risdiction(
Notes
A'o"nt in contro+ersy is only for di+ersity cases(
-n 0eneral, sin0le &laintiffs can a00re0ate clai's a0ainst sin0le defendants(
$,o &laintiffs 'ay not a00re0ate if they ha+e se&arate and distinct clai's(
-f there is a sin0le indi+isi.le har' ?as to 3oint o,ners of a &ro&ertyA, &laintiffs 'ay
a00re0ate ?."t this is rareA(
-f defendantsD lia.ility is 3oint and not se+eral, &laintiffs can a00re0ate(
-t is "nclear ,hether a &laintiff ,hose clai' 'eets the re8"ired a'o"nt can 3oin &laintiffs
,ho donDt(
Ad'inistrati+e efficiency and )
th
A'end'ent concerns are 2 criteria(
Section C: The Su)Dect Matter Jurisdiction of the 1ederal Courts 2 1ederal
Guestions
@sborn v. 7ank of t!e Unite, States (U.S. 182%)
J. Marshall
+oldin!: $he act of *on0ress 0i+es federal co"rts 3"risdiction o+er all cases ,here the
Cank of the Bnited 6tates ,as a &arty( $he contract in 8"estion co"ld ne+er ha+e .een
'ade, ."t "nder the a"thority of that act( $he act itself is the first in0redient in the case,
is its ori0in, is that fro' ,hich e+ery other &art arises( $hat other 8"estions 'ay also
arise cannot chan0e the case(
1acts: $he Cank of the Bnited 6tates .ro"0ht s"it in federal co"rt to en3oin the state
a"ditor of !hio fro' collectin0 fro' it a ta: alle0ed to .e "nconstit"tional( $he state
a"ditor forci.ly entered the .ank and took the 'oney( $he co"rt ordered the state
officials to ret"rn the 'oney( $he officials a&&ealed on the 0ro"nds that the federal co"rt
lacked s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction o+er the case(
Procedural +istor: A&&eal fro' district co"rt to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
o $he con0ressional act charterin0 the .ank a"thoriEed it /to s"e and .e s"ed in any
*irc"it *o"rt of the Bnited 6tates(1
o <hen the Cank s"es, the first 8"estion ,hich &resents itself, and ,hich lies at the
fo"ndation of the ca"se, is, has this le0al entity a ri0ht to s"e(
o $he 8"estion res&ectin0 the ri0ht to 'ake a contract, ac8"ire &ro&erty, or s"e for a
&artic"lar in3"ry .elon0s to e+ery &artic"lar case, and 'ay .e rene,ed in e+ery
case( $he 8"estion for's an ori0inal in0redient in e+ery ca"se(
o @one(
Notes
$he CankDs clai' a0ainst !s.orn ,as for tres&ass, a state tort( $he state re&lied that they
ha+e the &o,er to ta:( $he Cank res&onded .y sayin0 that this ri0ht ,as li'ited .y the
6"&re'e *o"rt r"lin0 in #c*ollo"0h +( #aryland(
Hershkoff distin0"ished .et,een a 3"ridical 8"estion and a 3"risdictional 8"estion ,hen
referrin0 to #arshallDs characteriEation of the CankDs ri0ht to s"e( - 0"ess that 'eans that
*on0ress 0ranted the Cank the &o,er to s"e, ."t didnDt necessarily 0rant the co"rts the
&o,er to hear the s"its(
$he /essential in0redient1 test see's to .e different than /arisin0 "nder1 test( $his 'i0ht
.e .eca"se #arshall ,ants, e: ante, to 'ake a federal for"' a+aila.le for cases ,here
federal interests are at stake( -n so'e cases, the federal 0o+ern'ent 'ay ha+e a stron0
interest in ad3"dicatin0 a case e+en if the &arties donDt raise the iss"es in their ca"se of
action(
5art of the 3"stification for the essential in0redient test is that co"rt sho"ld ha+e &arity
,ith *on0ress and the e:ec"ti+e .ranch(
$he !s.orn decision has .een said to allo, *on0ress to confer 3"risdiction ,hene+er
there e:ists in the .ack0ro"nd so'e federal &ro&osition that 'i0ht .e challen0ed, des&ite
the re'oteness of the likelihood of act"al &resentation of s"ch a federal iss"e( $his
federal &ro&osition does not ha+e to .e in the /ca"se of action1 necessarily( 9ither that,
or the conce&t of ca"se of action is e:&anded to incl"de it(
!s.orn does clai' that federal co"rts can constit"tionally hear cases ,here the only
federal stat"te in 8"estion is that ,hich 0rants 3"risdiction ?i(e( o+er a federal cor&orationA
in 0eneral, not o+er a clai' fro' a s&ecific la,( $his, of co"rse, is "& to the li'its of the
*onstit"tion(
2ouisville - Nas!ville +. "o. v. 1ottley (U.S. 1968)
Justice Mood
+oldin!: $he &laintiff '"st state the ca"se of action ,itho"t statin0 antici&ated defenses
that 'ay incl"de >ederal 8"estions( -f the &laintiff doesnDt raise a federal 8"estion in this
ca"se of action, then the case does not arise "nder the *onstit"tion or la,s of the B(6(
="d0'ent re+erse and case re'itted to circ"it co"rt ,ith instr"ctions to dis'iss for ,ant
of 3"risdiction(
1acts: $he &laintiffs ?res&ondentsA had recei+ed an "nli'ited lifeti'e rail &ass in a
settle'ent ,ith the defendant ?a&&ellantA( $he defendant declined to rene, the &ass,
citin0 a la, recently enacted .y *on0ress &rohi.itin0 railroads fro' 0i+in0 a,ay free rail
&asses( 5laintiffs s"ed the defendant in federal co"rt for .reach of contract(
Procedural +istor: ="d0'ent for the &laintiffs( Gefendants a&&ealed to 6"&re'e
*o"rt(
Precedents:
o Citing $ennessee +( Bnion F 5lantersD Cank ?B(6(A: A s"00estion of one &arty,
that the other ,ill or 'ay set "& a clai' "nder the *onstit"tion or la,s of the
B(6(, does not 'ake the s"it one arisin0 "nder that *onstit"tion or those la,s(
o Citing Coston F #( *onsol( *o&&er +( #ontana !re 5"rchasin0 *o( ?B(6(A: -t is
"nnecessary and i'&ro&er, in order to &ro+e the &laintiffDs ca"se of action, to 0o
into any 'atters of defense in order to sho, that a >ederal 8"estion 'i0ht or
&ro.a.ly ,o"ld arise(
o -t is the d"ty of the 6"&re'e *o"rt to see to it that the 3"risdiction of the circ"it
co"rt, ,hich is defined and li'ited .y stat"te, is not e:ceeded(
o -t is the settled inter&retation of the *onstit"tion that a s"it arises "nder the
*onstit"tion and la,s of the Bnited 6tates only ,hen the &laintiffDs state'ent of
his o,n ca"se of action sho,s that it is .ased "&on those la,s or the *onstit"tion(
o @one(
Notes
Hershkoff doesnDt .elie+e in the ad'inistrati+e efficiency ar0"'ent for #ottley(
$he r"le 'i0ht allo, states to shield certain cases ,here the federal 8"estion is i'&ortant
fro' federal co"rt( $his ,o"ld h"rt .oth the defendant and &ossi.ly the interests of the
federal 0o+ern'ent itself(
@ote that federal co"rts do ha+e a"thority to handle in3"nctions and declaratory
3"d0'ents ,ith the sa'e &arties and the sa'e facts ?see the section on collateral
challen0es to s".3ect 'atter 3"risdictionA(
Squibs
1ranchise Ta# Board v. Construction 'a)orers Hacation Trust 7U.S. 89>B<
Holdin0: $he district co"rt laced s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction .eca"se, "nder the ,ell-
&leaded co'&laint r"le in #ottley, the federal 8"estion did not a&&ear in the ta: .oardDs
co'&laint(
>acts: A state ta: .oard s"ed a tr"st in state co"rt, clai'in0 that the tr"st had /failed to
co'&ly ,ith three ta: le+ies iss"ed "nder *alifornia la,( $he tr"st ans,ered that it ,as
re0"lated "nder the 9'&loyee Retire'ent -nco'e 6ec"rity Act of 9)4 ?9R-6AA, and
that, "nder 9R-6A, it did not ha+e to co'&ly ,ith the state re0"lations( $he tr"st so"0ht
to re'o+e the action to federal co"rt(
5roced"ral History: Gistrict *o"rt r"led that 9R-6A did not &re-e'&t state ta:es(
Gefendant a&&ealed( B(6( *o"rt of A&&eals re+ersed(
o $he e:&ress 0rant of federal 3"risdiction in 9R-6A is li'ited to s"its .ro"0ht .y
certain &arties( -t did not 0o so far as to &ro+ide that any s"it a0ainst s"ch &arties
'"st .e .ro"0ht in federal co"rt ,hen they the'sel+es did not choose to s"e(
o $he federal co"rtDs a.ility to 'ake a declaratory 3"d0'ent '"st .e constr"ed
accordin0 to ,hat the clai' ,o"ld .e if it ,ere a re0"lar s"it or in3"nction(
Bri!ht v. Bechtel Petroleum- .nc. 79
th
Cir. 89>C<
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: Altho"0h the &laintiff is 0enerally considered the /'aster of
his co'&laint1 and is free to choose the for"' for his action, this &rinci&le is not ,itho"t
li'itation( A &laintiff ,ill not .e allo,ed to conceal the tr"e nat"re of a co'&laint
thro"0h /artf"l &leadin0(1
>.7. Har)s "o. v. ;lis*u (2
n,
"ir. 19/%)
C.J. 1riendl
+oldin!: $he 3"risdictional r"le t"rns solely on ,hether the co'&laint alle0ed any act or
threat of co&yri0ht infrin0e'ent( 6ince it did not, there is no federal 3"risdiction(
-nfrin0e'ent, as "sed in co&yri0ht la,, does not incl"de e+erythin0 that 'ay i'&air the
+al"e of the co&yri0htL it is doin0 one or 'ore of those thin0s ,hich the Act reser+es
e:cl"si+ely to the co&yri0ht o,ner(
1acts: 5laintiff Har's clai's that defendant 9lisc" sold his share of the co&yri0ht in
8"estion to Har's( 9lisc" denied this and tried to assi0n his share to defendant
="n0nickel, -nc( Har's .e0an an action for a declaratory 3"d0'ent a0ainst 9lisc" and
e8"ita.le relief(
Procedural +istor: A&&eal fro' dis'issal in district co"rt for lack of 3"risdiction(
Precedent:
o Distinguishing !s.orn +( Cank of the Bnited 6tates: Altho"0h #arshall constr"ed
arisin0 "nder accordin0 to his /essential in0redient1 test, the 6"&re'e *o"rt has
lon0 0i+en a narro,er 'eanin0 to the /arisin0 "nder1 lan0"a0e in stat"tes
definin0 the 3"risdiction of the lo,er federal co"rts(
o Distinguishing A'erican <ell <orks *o( +( 7ayne F Co,ler *o(: Hol'es states
that a s"it arises "nder the la, that creates the ca"se of action M if the 8"estion of
,hether it is a ,ron0 or not de&ends "&on the la, of the 6tate ,here the act is
done, then it is not ,ithin federal 3"risdiction(
o $he Hol'es test is 'ore "sef"l for incl"sion than e:cl"sion, .eca"se there 'ay .e
state re'edies that are .ased on federal la,s(
o $he federal 0rant of a &atent or co&yri0ht has not .een tho"0ht to inf"se ,ith any
national interest a dis&"te o+er o,nershi& or contract"al enforce'ent( -n these
cases, it is &artic"larly i'&ortant that state co"rts ha+e control, since 'any of the
'atters that ro"tinely co'e .efore state co"rts in+ol+e co&yri0hts or &atents(
o $he rele+ant stat"tes create no e:&licit ri0ht of action to enforce or rescind
assi0n'ent of co&yri0hts, nor does any co&yri0ht stat"te s&ecify a ca"se of action
to fi: the loc"s of o,nershi&(
o -n 0eneral, an action arises "nder the *o&yri0ht Act if and only if the co'&laint
?A is for a re'edy e:&ressly 0ranted .y the Act, ?2A asserts a clai' re8"irin0
constr"ction of the Act, or ?3A, 'ost do".tf"lly, &resents a case ,here a distincti+e
&olicy of the Act re8"ires that federal &rinci&les control the dis&osition of the
clai'(
o @one(
Notes
Hershkoff says that ?3A in >riendlyDs o&inion i'&lies that there are so'e cases ,here
federal co''on la, sho"ld deter'ine 3"risdiction(
*a"se of action is different than re'edy( <e see this in 6'ith and #errill Go,( -n
Har's, the ca"se of action '"st fit ,ith the re'edy( -t '"st .e s&ecific to the relief yo"
are seekin0(
Goes Har's s"00est that there are so'e cases ,here federal co''on la,, and not state
co''on la,, sho"ld deter'ine 3"risdiction4
Squibs
Smith v. /ansas Cit Title = Trust Co. 7U.S. 89;8<
Holdin0: $he 0eneral r"le is that ,here it a&&ears fro' the .ill or state'ent of the
&laintiff that the ri0ht to relief de&ends "&on the constr"ction or a&&lication of the
*onstit"tion or la,s of the Bnited 6tates, and that s"ch federal clai' is not 'erely
colora.le, and rests "&on a reasona.le fo"ndation, the Gistrict *o"rt has 3"risdiction(
>acts: A shareholder s"ed to en3oin the $r"st *o'&any, a #isso"ri cor&oration, fro'
in+estin0 in certain federal .onds on the 0ro"nd that the Act of *on0ress a"thoriEin0 their
iss"ance ,as "nconstit"tional( $he &laintiff clai'ed that "nder #isso"ri la, an
in+est'ent in sec"rities, the iss"ance of ,hich had not .een a"thoriEed .y a +alid la,
,as ultra vires H.eyond the sco&e of &o,er 0ranted to the cor&orationI and en3oina.le(
Gissentin0 !&inion ?Hol'esA: $he ca"se of action had .een created .y state la, and not
.y federal la,, and, therefore, did not arise "nder federal la,(
Moore v. Chesa$eake = 6hio 3. Co. 7U.S. 89B@<
Holdin0: A s"it .ro"0ht "nder the state stat"te ,hich defines lia.ility to e'&loyees ,ho
are in3"red ,hile en0a0ed in intrastate co''erce, and .rin0s ,ithin the &"r+ie, of the
stat"te a .reach of the d"ty i'&osed .y the federal stat"te, sho"ld not .e re0arded as a
s"it arisin0 "nder the la,s of the Bnited 6tates(
>acts: 5laintiff .ro"0ht an action "nder Kent"ckyDs 9'&loyer 7ia.ility Act, ,hich
&ro+ided that a &laintiff co"ld not .e held res&onsi.le for contri."tory ne0li0ence or
ass"'&tion of risk ,here his in3"ry res"lted fro' the +iolation of any state or federal
stat"te enacted for the safety of e'&loyees( 5laintiff alle0ed that his in3"ry ,as d"e to the
defendantDs fail"re to co'&ly ,ith the >ederal 6afety A&&liance Act(
Shoshone Minin! Co. v. 3utter 7U.S. 89??<
Holdin0: -nas'"ch as the s"it to deter'ine the ri0ht of &ossession 'ay not in+ol+e any
8"estion as to the constr"ction or effect of the *onstit"tion or la,s of the Bnited 6tates,
."t 'ay &resent si'&ly a 8"estion of fact M or the effect of state stat"tes, it ,o"ld see'
to follo, that it is not one ,hich necessarily arises "nder the *onstit"tion and la,s of the
B(6(
>acts: *on0ress had esta.lished a syste' ,hich allo,ed 'iners to file &atents on their
clai's M the federal stat"te &ro+ided that the ri0ht to &ossession ,as to .e deter'ined .y
the /local c"sto's or r"les of 'iners in the se+eral 'inin0 districts, so far as the sa'e are
a&&lica.le and not inconsistent ,ith the la,s of the B(6(1
Cort v. Ash 7U.S. 89:E<
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: 6"&re'e *o"rt anno"nced a fo"r-&art test for deter'inin0
,hether a &ri+ate ri0ht of action sho"ld .e i'&lied fro' a federal stat"te:
o >irst: is the &laintiff one of the class for ,hose es&ecial .enefit the stat"te ,as
enacted4
o 6econd: is there any indication of le0islati+e intent, e:&licit or i'&licit, either to
create a re'edy or to deny one4
o $hird: is it consistent ,ith the "nderlyin0 &"r&oses of the le0islati+e sche'e to
i'&ly a re'edy for the &laintiff4
o >o"rth: is the ca"se of action one traditionally rele0ated to state la,4
Notes
-s the difference .et,een 6'ith and #oore si'&ly the stren0th of the federal interest4
Goes it ha+e to do ,ith the initial &leadin04
-n #oore, since the >ederal 6afety A&&liance Act doesnDt reach in cases of intrastate
co''erce, the federal stat"te is not a ca"se of action(
6'ith see's to artic"late the &rinci&le that clai's ,hich t"rn on the constr"ction of
federal la, are non-colora.le(
-n #oore, the federal stat"te ,as necessary to satisfy the re8"ire'ents of the state stat"te,
and th"s it is necessary to constr"e it, ."t the ca"se of action still doesnDt arise "nder
federal la,(
$hree &ron0s:
o -s there a ca"se of action4
o Goes the clai' re8"ire the constr"ction of a federal la,4 Goes the case in+oke
the &olicies that "nderlie federal 3"risdiction4
o 6ho"ld federal &rinci&les ?e(0( co''on la,A resol+e the case4
1errell 3ow P!ar)a*euti*als n*. v. >!o).son (U.S. 198/)
Justice Stevens
+oldin!: <e concl"de that a co'&laint alle0in0 a +iolation of a federal stat"te as an
ele'ent of a state ca"se of action, ,hen *on0ress has deter'ined that there sho"ld .e no
&ri+ate, federal ca"se of action for the +iolation, does not state a clai' /arisin0 "nder1 28
B(6(*( Q33( $he 3"d0'ent of the *o"rt of A&&eals is affir'ed(
1acts: $ho'&son and #ac$a+ish, .oth forei0n citiEens, filed se&arate cases in state
co"rt a0ainst #errill Go,, alle0in0 ne0li0ence, .reach of ,arranty, strict lia.ility, fra"d,
and 0ross ne0li0ence concernin0 the dr"0 Cendectin( -n &art of their &leadin0, they
alle0ed that the dr"0 ,as /'is.randed1 in +iolation of the >ederal >ood, Gr"0, and
*os'etic Act .eca"se its la.elin0 did not &ro+ide ade8"ate ,arnin0 that its "se ,as
&otentially dan0ero"s( #erril Go, filed to re'o+e case to federal co"rt( After re'o+al,
t,o cases ,ere consolidated( 5laintiffs filed a 'otion to re'and the cases to the state(
Procedural +istor: Gistrict co"rt denied &laintiffDs 'otion to re'and and then 0ranted
defendantDs 'otion to dis'iss on forum non conveniens 0ro"nds( *o"rt of A&&eals
re+ersed( Gefendants a&&ealed to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
Precedents:
o Distinguishing A'erican <ell <orks *o( +( 7ayne F Co,ler *o(: $he +ast
'a3ority of cases that co'e ,ithin this HQ33I 0rant of 3"risdiction are co+ered
.y ="stice Hol'esD state'ent that a Ks"it arises "nder the la, that creates the
ca"se of action(D
o Citing 6'ith +( Kansas *ity $itle F $r"st *o(: <e ha+e, ho,e+er, also noted that
a case 'ay arise "nder federal la, /,here the +indication of a ri0ht "nder state
la, necessarily t"rned on so'e constr"ction of federal la,(1
o Following *ort +( Ash: Bnder the settled fra'e,ork for e+al"atin0 ,hether a
federal ca"se of action lies, so'e co'.ination of the follo,in0 factors is &resent:
?A the &laintiffs are not &art of the class for ,hose s&ecial .enefit the stat"te ,as
&assesL ?2A the indicia of the le0islati+e intent re+eal no con0ressional &"r&ose to
&ro+ide a &ri+ate ca"se of actionL ?3A a federal ca"se of action ,o"ld not f"rther
the "nderlyin0 &"r&oses of the le0islati+e sche'eL and ?4A the res&ondentsD ca"se
of action is a s".3ect traditionally rele0ated to state la,(
o $he si0nificance of the necessary ass"'&tion that there is no federal &ri+ate ca"se
of action th"s cannot .e o+erstated(
o <e think it ,o"ld si'ilarly flo"t con0ressional intent to concl"de that the federal
co"rts 'i0ht ne+ertheless e:ercise federal-8"estion 3"risdiction solely .eca"se the
+iolation of the federal stat"te is said to .e a /re."tta.le &res"'&tion1 or a
/&ro:i'ate ca"se1 "nder state la,, rather than a federal action "nder federal la,(
o <e si'&ly concl"de that the con0ressional deter'ination that there sho"ld .e no
federal re'edy for the +iolation of this federal stat"te is tanta'o"nt to a
con0ressional concl"sion that the &resence of a clai'ed +iolation of the stat"te as
an ele'ent of a state ca"se of action is ins"fficiently /s".stantial1 to confer
federal 8"estion 3"risdiction(
o <e re3ect the ar0"'ent that there are s&ecial circ"'stances that 3"stify federal-
8"estion 3"risdiction in this case( 5etitioner e'&hasiEes that it is "nclear ,hether
the >G*A a&&lies to sales in *anada and 6cotland( <e do not .elie+e the
8"estion ,hether a &artic"lar clai' arises "nder federal la, de&ends on the
no+elty of the federal iss"e(
&issentin! 6$inions 7Justice Brennan<:
o Coth the &laintiff and the defendant .ase their clai's s".stantially on the
constr"ction of the >G*A(
o $he decision not to &ro+ide a &ri+ate federal re'edy sho"ld not affect federal
3"risdiction "nless the reasons *on0ress ,ithholds a federal re'edy are also
reasons for ,ithholdin0 federal 3"risdiction( $h"s, it is necessary to e:a'ine the
reasons for *on0ressD decisions to 0rant or ,ithhold .oth federal 3"risdiction and
&ri+ate re'edies, so'ethin0 the *o"rt has not done(
o *on0ress reco0niEed the i'&ortance and e+en necessity of "nifor'ity of decisions
thro"0ho"t the ,hole B(6(, "&on all s".3ects ,ithin the &"r+ie, of the
constit"tion(
o $he federal co"rts are co'&arati+ely 'ore skilled at inter&retin0 and a&&lyin0
federal la,, and are '"ch 'ore likely correctly to di+ine *on0ressD intent in
enactin0 le0islation(
o *on0ress &asses la,s in order to sha&e .eha+iorL a federal la, e:&resses
*on0ressD deter'ination that there is a federal interest in ha+in0 indi+id"als or
other entities confor' their actions to a &artic"lar nor' esta.lished .y the la,(
o Ji+en the relati+e e:&ertise of the federal co"rts inter&retin0 federal la,, the
increased co'&le:ity of federal ar0"es rather stron0 in fa+or of reco0niEin0
federal 3"risdiction(
o Ji+en that *on0ress str"ct"red the >G*A so that all e:&ress re'edies are
&ro+ided .y the federal co"rts, it see's rather stran0e to concl"de that it either
/flo"ts1 or /"nder'ines1 con0ressional intent for the federal co"rts to ad3"dicate
a &ri+ate state-la, re'edy that is .ased "&on +iolatin0 the >G*A(
Notes
$he *ortRAsh test 'akes it hi0hly "n"s"al for acts not 'entionin0 ca"ses of action to .e
ass"'ed to &ro+ide for ca"ses(
-n &ast 0enerations, *on0ress deter'ined &olicy criteria and left ca"ses of action to
co"rts( @o,, in Rhe8"ist co"rt, there is not a &res"'&tion that *on0ress ,ants re'edies(
$here is 3"risdiction "nder 6'ith ?accordin0 to #errill Go,A if and only if *on0ress has
created a ca"se of action, federal co"rts 'ay try the case e+en if the ca"se listed is a state
ca"se(
-s the @e, Nork case that in+ol+es the definition of di+orce in its decision on 3"risdiction
rele+ant to the case for not considerin0 federal la, as necessary for &er se ne0li0ence4
Section &: The Su)Dect(Matter Jurisdiction of the 1ederal Courts 2
Su$$lemental Claims and Parties
Unite, 1ine #orkers of ()eri*a v. 'ibbs (U.S. 19//)
Justice Brennan
+oldin!: $he state and federal clai's '"st deri+e fro' a co''on n"cle"s of o&erati+e
fact( C"t if, considered ,itho"t re0ard for their federal or state character, a &laintiffDs
clai's are s"ch that he ,o"ld ordinarily .e e:&ected to try the' all in one 3"dicial
&roceedin0, then, ass"'in0 s".stantiality of the federal iss"es, there is power in the
federal co"rts to hear the ,hole M !nce it a&&ears that a state clai' constit"tes the real
.ody of the case, to ,hich the federal clai' is only an a&&endan0e, the sate clai' 'ay
fairly .e dis'issed M <e are not &re&ared to say that in the &resent case the Gistrict
*o"rt e:ceeded its discretion in &roceedin0 to 3"d0'ent on the state clai' M <e cannot
confidently say, ho,e+er, that the federal iss"es ,ere so re'ote or &layed s"ch a 'inor
role at the trial that in effect the state clai' only ,as tried( Re+ersed(
1acts: 5laintiff Hres&ondentI Ji..s ,as a,arded co'&ensatory and &"niti+e da'a0es in
this action a0ainst defendant H&etitionerI B#< for alle0ed +iolations of Q3%3 of the
7a.or #ana0e'ent Relations Act, 94), and of the co''on la, of $ennessee( 5laintiff
,as 0i+en a contract to ha"l a 'ineDs coal to a railroad( $he &laintiff ,o"ld "se sca.
"nion la.or( Ar'ed 'e'.ers of the B#<, ,hich ,as .arred fro' the 'ine, forci.ly
&re+ented the o&enin0 of the 'ine and threatened &laintiff( 5laintiff lost his 3o. and
ne+er entered into &erfor'ance of his ha"la0e contract( He testified that he soon .e0an to
lose other tr"ckin0 contracts and 'ine leases he held in near.y areas( He .ro"0ht action
.ased on a federal clai' of ille0al secondary .oycott and a state clai' of "nla,f"l
cons&iracy(
Procedural +istor: B(6( Gistrict *o"rt set aside +erdict on federal clai' ."t s"stained
a re'itted a,ard on the state clai'( $he *o"rt of A&&eals Affir'ed(
Precedents:
o Examining H"rn +( !"rsler ?B(6( 933A: 6tate la, clai's are a&&ro&riate for
federal co"rt deter'ination if they for' a se&arate ."t &arallel 0ro"nd for relief
also so"0ht in a s".stantial clai' .ased on federal la,( $he *o"rt distin0"ished
&er'issi.le fro' non-&er'issi.le e:ercises of federal 3"dicial &o,er o+er state
la, clai's .y contrastin0 /a case ,here t,o distinct 0ro"nds in s"&&ort of a
sin0le ca"se of action are alle0ed, one only of ,hich &resents a federal 8"estion,
and a case ,here t,o se&arate and distinct ca"ses of action are alle0ed, one only
of ,hich is federal in character( -n the for'er, ,here the federal 8"estion a+erred
is not &lainly ,antin0 in s".stance, the federal co"rt, e+en tho"0h the federal
0ro"nd .e not esta.lished, 'ay ne+ertheless retain and dis&ose of the case "&on
the nonfederal 0ro"ndL in the latter it 'ay not do so "&on the nonfederal ca"se of
action(1
o Citing Calti'ore 6(6( *o( +( 5hilli&s ?B(6(A: A ca"se of action does not consist of
facts, ."t of the "nla,f"l +iolation of a ri0ht ,hich the facts sho,( $he n"'.er
and +ariety of the facts alle0ed do not esta.lish 'ore than one ca"se of action so
lon0 as their res"lt, ,hether they .e considered se+erally or in co'.ination, is the
+iolation of ."t one ri0ht .y a sin0le le0al ,ron0(
o Following B(6( *onst(, Art( ---, Q2: 5endant 3"risdiction, in the sense of 3"dicial
&o,er, e:ists ,hene+er there is a clai' /arisin0 "nder the *onstit"tion, the 7a,s
of the Bnited 6tates, and $reaties 'ade, or ,hich shall .e 'ade, "nder their
A"thority(1
o Citing 7e+erin0 F Jarri0"es *o( +( #orrin ?B(6(A: $he federal clai' '"st ha+e
s".stance s"fficient to confer s".3ect 'atter 3"risdiction on the co"rt(
o Citing 9rie R( *o( +( $o'&kins ?B(6(A: 5endent 3"risdiction is a doctrine of
discretion, not of &laintiffDs ri0ht( -ts 3"stification lies in considerations of 3"dicial
econo'y, con+enience and fairness to liti0antsL if these are not &resent a federal
co"rt sho"ld hesitate to e:ercise 3"risdiction o+er state clai's, e+en tho"0h .o"nd
to a&&ly state la, to the'(
o A threshold 8"estion is ,hether the Gistrict *o"rt &ro&erly entertained
3"risdiction of the clai' .ased on $ennessee la,(
o $he relationshi& .et,een that HfederalI clai' and the state clai's 'ade in the
co'&laint &er'its the concl"sion that the entire action .efore the co"rt co'&rises
."t one constit"tional /case(1
o @eedless decisions of state la, sho"ld .e a+oided .oth as a 'atter of co'ity and
to &ro'ote 3"stice .et,een the &arties, .y &roc"rin0 for the' a s"rer-footed
readin0 of a&&lica.le la,(
o *ertainly, if the federal clai's are dis'issed .efore trial, e+en tho"0h not
ins".stantial in a 3"risdictional sense, the sate clai's sho"ld .e dis'issed as ,ell(
6i'ilarly, if it a&&ears that the state iss"es s".stantially &redo'inate, the state
clai's 'ay .e dis'issed ,itho"t &re3"dice and left for resol"tion to state
tri."nals(
o -n the &resent case, for e:a'&le, the allo,a.le sco&e of the state clai' i'&licates
the federal doctrine of &re-e'&tionL ,hile this interrelationshi& does not create
stat"tory federal 8"estion 3"risdiction, its e:istence is rele+ant to the e:ercise of
discretion(
o @one(
Notes
6"&&le'ental 3"risdiction defines the e:tent to ,hich clai's can .e &recl"ded(
5recl"sion doctrine says that if yo" co"ld ha+e .ro"0ht se&arate cases to0ether, yo" 'ay
not liti0ate the' se&arately(
$his raises 8"estion of ,hether Article --- is self-e:ec"tin0(
<hat is the distinction .et,een a /0ro"nd1 and a /ca"se of action14 -s that is like res
i&sa and c"sto' 'ay .e se&arate 0ro"nds for a ne0li0ence action4
H"rn ?'entioned a.o+eA still has effects on res 3"dicata(
-n Ji..s, Crennan shades Q33 like #arshall shaded the *onstit"tion in !s.orn(
CrennanDs 3"stification 0oes .ack to !s.orn and the need for a federal for"' for all
federal iss"es(
$he &ro.le' is that if liti0ants co"ldnDt try state iss"es in federal co"rts, they ,o"ld 3"st
"se state co"rts(
$est 2 co''on n"cle"s of o&erati+e fact(
(l,in$er v. Howar, (U.S. 197/)
+oldin!: 6"&re'e *o"rt ref"sed to a&&ly &endent 3"risdiction to an additional &arty
,ith res&ect to ,ho' no inde&endent .asis of federal 3"risdiction e:isted(
1acts: $he s"it ,as .ro"0ht .y a citiEen of <ashin0ton a0ainst se+eral officers of
6&okane *o"nty and alle0ed +iolations of the *i+il Ri0hts Act( 5laintiff so"0h to 3oin the
co"nty itself as an additional defendant, ."t "nder the constr"ction 0i+en the federal
stat"te at the ti'e, co"nties ,ere not considered to .e s".3ect to it( $herefore, the
&laintiff ,as forced to s"e the co"nty "nder state la,, and ar0"e that a federal co"rt co"ld
hear her clai' "nder its &endent 3"risdiction(
Precedents:
o Gistin0"ishin0 B#< +( Ji..s ?B(6(A: -t is 8"ite different to 3oin an entirely
different defendant on the .asis of a state-la, clai' o+er ,hich there is no
inde&endent .asis of federal 3"risdiction, si'&ly .eca"se the &laintiffDs clai'
a0ainst the first defendant and his clai' a0ainst the second defendant /deri+e
fro' a co''on n"cle"s of o&erati+e fact(1
o <hile the sa'e considerations of 3"dicial econo'y ,o"ld .e ser+ed ?as in Ji..sA,
."t the addition of a co'&letely ne, &arty ,o"ld r"n co"nter to the ,ell-
esta.lished &rinci&le that federal co"rts, as o&&osed to state trial co"rts of 0eneral
3"risdiction, are co"rts of li'ited 3"risdiction 'arked o"t .y *on0ress(
o $he 8"estion here is ,hether .y +irt"e of the stat"tory 0rant of s".3ect-'atter
3"risdiction, "&on ,hich &etitionerDs &rinci&al clai' a0ainst the treas"rer rests,
*on0ress as addressed itself to the &arty as to ,ho' 3"risdiction &endent to the
&rinci&al clai' is so"0h( And it "ndo".tedly has done so(
o !ther stat"tory 0rants and other ali0n'ents of &arties and clai's 'i0ht call for a
different res"lt( <hen the 0rant of 3"risdiction to a federal co"rt is e:cl"si+e, for
e:a'&le, as in the &rosec"tion of tort clai's a0ainst the Bnited 6tates, the
ar0"'ent of 3"dicial econo'y and con+enience can .e co"&led ,ith the additional
ar0"'ent that only in a federal co"rt 'ay all of the clai's .e tried to0ether(
Notes
Addin0 state clai's to an action a0ainst an e:istin0 federal defendant does not a.ro0ate
constit"tional a"thority in the sa'e ,ay that addin0 a ne, defendant ,o"ld(
="risdiction is a.o"t the stat"s of parties, not of clai's(
@wen ;qui.)ent - ;re*tion "o. v. 8ro$er (U.S. 1978)
Justice Ste%art
+oldin!: @either the con+enience of the liti0ants nor considerations of 3"dicial econo'y
can s"ffice to 3"stify e:tension of the doctrine of ancillary 3"risdiction to a &laintiffDs
ca"se of action a0ainst a citiEen of the sa'e 6tate in a di+ersity case( $o allo, the
re8"ire'ent of co'&lete di+ersity to .e circ"'+ented as it ,as in this case ,o"ld si'&ly
flo"t the con0ressional co''and(
1acts: #rs( Kro0er, a citiEen of -o,a, s"ed !'aha 5".lich 5o,er Gistrict ?!55GA, a
@e.raska cor&oration, for the ,ron0f"l death of her h"s.and( !55G, in t"rn, filed a
third-&arty co'&laint &"rs"ant to >ederal R"le 4?aA a0ainst !,en 98"i&'ent and
9rection *o'&any alle0in0 that the crane ,as o,ned and o&erated .y !,en( 5laintiff
,as then allo,ed to a'end her co'&laint to na'e !,en as a defendant, ,ho she alle0ed
,as a @e.raska cor&oration( !55G then re8"ested, and ,as 0ranted, s"''ary 3"d0'ent,
lea+in0 !,en as the sole defendant( G"rin0 the co"rse of the trial, it ,as disco+ered that
!,enDs &rinci&al &lace of ."siness act"ally ,as in -o,a( As a res"lt, !,en 'o+ed to
dis'iss the case .ased on a lack of s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction(
Procedural +istor:
o Citing Aldin0er +( Ho,ard ?B(6(A: Aldin0er 'akes it clear that a findin0 that
federal and nonfederal clai's arise fro' a /co''on n"cle"s of o&erati+e fact,1
the test of Ji..s, does not end the in8"iry into ,hether a federal co"rt has &o,er
to hear the nonfederal clai's( Ceyond this constit"tional 'ini'"', thre '"st .e
an e:a'ination of the &ost"re in ,hich the nonfederal clai' is asserted and of the
s&ecific stat"te that confers 3"risdiction o+er the federal clai'(
o Citing 28 B(6(*( Q332?aA?A: -t and its &redecessors ha+e consistently .een held
to re8"ire co'&lete di+ersity of citiEenshi&(
o *onstit"tional &o,er is 'erely the first h"rdle that '"st .e o+erco'e in
deter'inin0 that a federal co"rt has 3"risdiction o+er a &artic"lar contro+ersy(
#"st then look at ena.lin0 stat"te(
o Bnder the reasonin0 of the *o"rt of A&&eals in this case, a &laintiff co"ld defeat
the stat"tory re8"ire'ent of co'&lete di+ersity .y the si'&le e:&edient of s"in0
only those defendants ,ho ,ere of di+erse citiEenshi& and ,aitin0 for the' to
i'&lead non-di+erse defendants(
=inley v. Unite, States (U.S. 1989)
Justice Scalia
+oldin!: All o"r cases ha+e held that the 0rant of 3"risdiction o+er clai's in+ol+in0
&artic"lar &arties does not itself confer 3"risdiction o+er additional clai's .y or a0ainst
different &arties( !"r decision today reaffir's that inter&reti+e r"leL the o&&osite ,o"ld
so, conf"sion(
1acts: 5laintiffDs h"s.and and t,o children ,ere killed ,hen their &lane str"ck electric
&o,er lines( 6"it ,as filed in federal district co"rt a0ainst the Bnited 6tates "nder the
>ederal $ort *lai's Act ?>$*AA alle0in0 that the >AA had .een ne0li0ent( $he &laintiff
later ,as allo,ed to a'end her co'&laint to incl"de state-la, tort clai's a0ainst .oth the
city of 6an Gie0o and the "tility co'&any that 'aintained the &o,er lines(
Procedural +istor: Gistrict *o"rtDs decision to allo, the a'end'ent ,as re+ersed .y
the *o"rt of A&&eals(
Precedents:
o Citing $he #ayor +( *oo&er ?B(6( 868A: As re0ards all co"rts of the Bnited
6tates inferior to this tri."nal, t,o thin0s are necessary to create 3"risdiction,
,hether ori0inal or a&&ellate( $he *onstit"tion '"st ha+e 0i+en to the co"rt the
ca&acity to take it, and an act of *on0ress '"st ha+e s"&&lied it( $o the e:tent
that s"ch action is not taken, the &o,er lies dor'ant(
o Distinguishing >$*A Q346?.A: *onfers 3"risdiction o+er /ci+il actions on clai's
a0ainst the Bnited 6tates(1 -t does not say /ci+il actions on clai's that incl"de
re8"ested relief a0ainst the Bnited 6tates,1 nor /ci+il actions in ,hich there is a
clai' a0ainst the Bnited 6tates(1
o !"r cases sho,, ho,e+er, that ,ith res&ect to the addition of &arties, as o&&osed
to the addition of only clai's, ,e ,ill not ass"'e that the f"ll constit"tional
&o,er has .een con0ressionally a"thoriEed, and ,ill not read 3"risdictional
stat"tes .roadly(
o ="st as the stat"tory &ro+ision /.et,een citiEens of different 6tates1 has .een held
to 'ean citiEens of different 6tates and no one else, so also here ,e concl"de that
/a0ainst the Bnited 6tates1 'eans a0ainst the Bnited 6tates and no one else(
o <hat is of &ara'o"nt i'&ortance is that *on0ress .e a.le to le0islate a0ainst a
.ack0ro"nd of clear inter&reti+e r"les, so that it 'ay kno, the effect of the
lan0"a0e it ado&ts(
&issentin! 6$inion 7Justice Stevens<:
o -n Aldin0er, ,e ado&ted a r"le of constr"ction that ass"'ed the e:istence of
&endent 3"risdiction "nless /*on0ress in the stat"tes conferrin0 3"risdiction has
e:&ressly or .y i'&lication ne0ated its e:istence(1
o !"r state'ent in Aldin0er that .efore a federal co"rt 'ay e:ercise &endent &arty
3"risdiction it '"st satisfy itself that *on0ress /has not e:&ressly or .y
i'&lication ne0ated its e:istence1, it no, instr"cts that /a 0rant of 3"risdiction
o+er clai's in+ol+in0 &artic"lar &arties does not itself confer 3"risdiction o+er
additional clai's .y or a0ainst different &arties(1
1en$ler: 7urbank - +owe on A1B/7
-n Finley, ="stice 6calia in+ited *on0ress to fill the 3"risdictional 0a&s its decision had
created(
-n reachin0 the li'its of Article ---, s".section ?aA codifies s"&&le'ental 3"risdiction at
the o"ter constit"tional .o"ndary that e:isted .efore >inleyDs stat"tory re+isionis'(
6".section ?.A alters &re->inley la, in one i'&ortant ,ay( @o,, a &erson can neither
inter+ene as a &laintiff "nder >R*5 24?aA nor .e 3oined as a &laintiff "nder >R*5 9 if
inter+ention or 3oinder ,o"ld .e inconsistent ,ith the di+ersity re8"ire'ents(
6".section ?cA &ro+ides federal co"rts ,ith discretion in so'e circ"'stances to decline to
e:ercise s"&&le'ental 3"risdiction(
-n effect, section 36)?dA conte'&lates, ,itho"t s&ecifically addressin0 the &roced"ral
'eans of doin0 so, that so'e &arties ,ill desire to take their entire action to state co"rt if
they are &rohi.ited fro' raisin0 so'e or all of their s"&&le'ental clai's in federal co"rt(
;<e*utive Software Nort! ()eri*a: n*. v. Unite, States 3istri*t "ourt for t!e
"entral 3istri*t of "alifornia (9
t!
"ir. 199%)
&.,. Nelson- Circuit Jud!e
+oldin!: Q36)?cA?4A re8"ires the Gistrict *o"rt not only to deter'ine if consideration of
the Ji..s +al"es &ro+ides co'&ellin0 reasons for a re'and, ."t also to artic"late ho, the
circ"'stances that ,arrant declinin0 3"risdiction are e:ce&tional( $he Gistrict *o"rt
clearly erred .y artic"latin0 a .asis for declinin0 3"risdiction that is "na"thoriEed .y
stat"te(
1acts: 5a0e, a .lack fe'ale, asserts that her e'&loyer "nfairly criticiEed her
&erfor'ance and then ter'inated here as a 'ere /s".terf"0e for ille0al discri'ination
a0ainst non-.elie+ers in the *h"rch of 6cientolo0y, ,o'en and racial 'inorities(1 -n her
co'&laint, 5a0e alle0ed t,o federal ca"ses of action as ,ell as three state-la, ca"ses of
action( Cased on the t,o federal clai's, defendants re'o+ed the action to federal co"rt(
$he district co"rt re'anded the three state-la, clai's to state co"rt, sayin0 that it
inter&reted Q36) as allo,in0 the sa'e .readth of discretion to ref"se 3"risdiction as had
.een allo,ed "nder Ji..s( -t did not offer any s&ecific reasons for re'andin0 the state-
la, clai's(
o !nce it is deter'ined that the assertion of s"&&le'ental 3"risdiction is &er'issi.le
"nder section 36)?aA and ?.A, section 36)?cA &ro+ides the only +alid .asis "&on
,hich the district co"rt 'ay decline 3"risdiction and re'and &endent clai's(
o 6".section ?cA?4A &er'its a co"rt to decline 3"risdiction ,hen, /in e:ce&tional
circ"'stances, there are other co'&ellin0 reasons,1 channelin0 the district co"rtDs
discretion to identify ne, 0ro"nds for declinin0 3"risdiction 'ore &artic"larly
than did &ree:istin0 doctrine(
o Cy the "se of the ,ord /shall1, the stat"te 'akes clear that if &o,er is conferred
"nder section 36)?aA, and its e:ercise is not &rohi.ited .y section 36)?.A, a
co"rt can decline to assert s"&&le'ental 3"risdiction o+er a &endent clai' only if
one of the fo"r cate0ories s&ecifically en"'erated in section 36)?cA a&&lies(
o A conse8"ence of the stat"tory str"ct"re chosen .y *on0ress is that section
36)?cA so'e,hat chan0es the nat"re of the Ji..s discretionary in8"iry(
o <e .elie+e that /co'&ellin0 reasons1 for the &"r&oses of s".section ?cA?4A
si'ilarly sho"ld .e those that lead a co"rt to concl"de that declinin0 3"risdiction
/.est acco''odates the +al"es of econo'y, con+enience, fairness, and co'ity(1
o -n short, altho"0h ,e find that /other co'&ellin0 reasons1 clearly refers the
district co"rt .ack to the s".section ?cA?A-?3A cate0ories, and th"s re8"ires the
co"rt to .alance the "nderlyin0 +al"es that they e'.ody, ,e think /e:ce&tional
circ"'stances1 re8"ires an additional in8"iry(
o Geclinin0 3"risdiction o"tside of s".section ?cA?A-?3A sho"ld .e the e:ce&tion,
rather than the r"le(
o $he in8"iry is not &artic"larly ."rdenso'e( Aco"rt si'&ly '"st artic"late ,hy
the circ"'stances of the case are e:ce&tional in addition to in8"irin0 ,hether the
.alance of the Ji..s +al"es &ro+ide co'&ellin0 reasons for declinin0 3"risdiction
in s"ch circ"'stances(
&issentin! 6$inion 7'eav- Circuit Jud!e<:
o Ceca"se the co"rt 'ade no findin0s, ,e do not kno, ,hich one or 'ore of the
0ro"nds it relied on( !n that .asis alone, ho,e+er, the 'a3ority concl"des that the
district co"rt 'ay ha+e relied on a 0ro"nd not en"'erated in section 36)?cAL that
this ,as in error, and not only error, ."t clear error for the &"r&ose of 'anda'"s(
o $he fact that the district co"rt does not inter&ret the 99% enact'ent of 36) as
restrictin0 the discretionary factors set forth in Ji..s is of no 'o'ent "nless ,e
can say that the trial co"rt e:ceeded its la,f"l a"thority ,here+er it 'ay .e fo"nd(
o $he sentence that *on0ress "sed to confer 3"risdiction e:ce&ts fro' its sco&e
those clai's o+er ,hich the district co"rt 'ay decline to e:ercise 3"risdiction(
$he stat"te does not say that the co"rt shall /e:ercise1 3"risdiction(
Squibs
Shana!han v. Cahill 7@
th
Cir. 899E<
Holdin0: <hen the federal .asis for an action disa&&ears, a district co"rt is free to decide
,hether to assert 3"risdiction o+er the re'ainin0 clai's, in accordance ,ith 6ection
36)L it ,ent on to hold that si'ilar discretion e:ists ,hen the a'o"nt in contro+ersy
falls .elo, the stat"tory 'ini'"'(
>acts: 5laintiff .ro"0ht a di+ersity action to reco+er fro' the defendant three se&arate
de.ts, in the a'o"nts of P4%,%%%, P23,696, and P4,)%%( $he district co"rt 0ranted
s"''ary 3"d0'ent for the defendant on the P4%,%%% clai' and dis'issed the re'ainin0
clai's, notin0 that the a'o"nt in contro+ersy had fallen .elo, P5%,%%%(
Section ". The Su)Dect(Matter Jurisdiction of the 1ederal Courts 2 3emoval
S!a)ro*k @il - 'as "or.. v. S!eets (U.S. 19%1)
Justice Stone
+oldin!: @ot only does the lan0"a0e of the Act of 88) e+idence the *on0ressional
&"r&ose to restrict the 3"risdiction of the federal co"rts on re'o+al, ."t the &olicy of the
s"ccessi+e acts of *on0ress re0"latin0 the 3"risdiction of federal co"rts is one callin0 for
the strict constr"ction of s"ch le0islation( $herefore, a &laintiff cannot re'o+e .eca"se a
defendant inter&oses a federal-8"estion co"nterclai'(
Precedents:
o Citing 6ection 2 of the ="diciary Act of )89: -f a s"it .e co''enced in any
state co"rt a0ainst an alien or a0ainst a citiEen of another state, and the 'atter in
dis&"te e:ceeds the 3"risdictional a'o"nt and the defendant shall, at the ti'e of
enterin0 his a&&earance in s"ch state co"rt, file a &etition for the re'o+al of the
ca"se(
o Citing <est +( A"rora *ity ?B(6(A: $his *o"rt held that re'o+al co"ld .e effected
"nder Q2 only .y a defendant a0ainst ,ho' the s"it is .ro"0h .y &rocess ser+ed
"&on hi'(
o Distinguishing 6ection 3 of the Act of 8)5: A"thoriEed either &arty, or any one
or 'ore of the &laintiffs or defendants entitled to re'o+e any s"it fro' the state
co"rt to do so "&on the &etition in s"ch s"it to the state co"rt .efore or at the ter'
at ,hich said ca"se co"ld .e first tried and .efore the trial thereof( $hese
&ro+isions ,ere contin"ed "ntil the ado&tion of the &ro+isions of the &resent
stat"te so far as no, 'aterial .y the Act of 88)(
o Following Act of 8)5: $he o'ission fro' the earlier act of the &hrase /either
&arty1 and the s".stit"tion for it of the &hrase a"thoriEin0 re'o+al .y the
/defendant or defendants1 in the s"it, or the like o'ission of the &ro+ision for
re'o+al at any ti'e .efore the trial, and the s".stit"tion for it of the re8"ire'ent
that the re'o+al &etition .e filed .y the defendant at or .efore the ti'e he is
re8"ired to &lead in the state co"rt(
Squibs
Thermtron Prods.- .nc. v. +ermansdorfer 7U.S. 89:C<
Holdin0: 6ections 44)?cA and ?dA sho"ld .e read to0ether so that re'and 'ay .e
directed only if it is .ased on the 0ro"nds s&ecified in s".section ?cA 2 re'o+al ,as
i'&ro+ident and ,itho"t 3"risdiction 2 and only an order in+okin0 these reasons is
i''"ne fro' re+ie, "nder s".section ?dA(
Carne!ie(Mellon Universit v. Cohill 7U.S. 89>><
Holdin0: A district co"rt has discretion to re'and a case to state co"rt after deter'inin0
that retainin0 3"risdiction o+er the case ,o"ld .e ina&&ro&riate(
>acts: Gefendants re'o+ed the case to federal co"rt( 5laintiffs 'o+ed to a'end their
co'&laint to delete the federal clai's, and for re'and to state co"rt(
o A re'and 'ay .est &ro'ote the +al"es of econo'y, con+enience, fairness and
co'ity(
o A district co"rt can consider ,hether the &laintiff has en0a0ed in any
'ani&"lati+e tactics ,hen it decides ,hether to re'and a case( $he district co"rts
th"s can 0"ard a0ainst for"' 'ani&"lation ,itho"t a .lanket r"le that ,o"ld
&rohi.it the re'and of all cases in+ol+in0 &endent state-la, clai's(
American 1ire = Cas. Co. v. 1inn 7U.S. 89E8<
Holdin0: $he co'&any a0ainst ,hich 3"d0'ent had .een entered then so"0ht to +acate
the 3"d0'ent on the 0ro"nds that the action had .een i'&ro&erly re'o+ed and that the
federal co"rt lacked 3"risdiction( $he 6"&re'e *o"rt a0reed, concl"din0 that /,here
there is a sin0le ,ron0 to the &laintiffs, for ,hich relief is so"0ht, arisin0 fro' an
interlocked series of transactions, there is no se&arate and inde&endent clai' or ca"se of
action "nder Q44?cA(1
>acts: >inn, a $e:an, s"ed t,o forei0n ins"rance co'&anies and their local a0ent, also a
$e:an, in a $e:as state co"rt( $he co'&laint contained alternati+e clai's for reco+ery for
a fire loss s"ffered .y &laintiff alle0in0 that one or the other ins"rer had iss"ed &olicies
that co+ered the loss or that the local a0ent ,as lia.le for ha+in0 failed to kee& &laintiffDs
&ro&erty ins"red( $he forei0n ins"rance co'&anies re'o+ed(
7orou$! of #est 1ifflin v. 2an*aster (B
r,
"ir. 199&)
Pratt- Circuit Jud!e
+oldin!: -f the fact"al alle0ations of the co'&laint are acce&t at face +al"e, as ,e are
re8"ired to do at this &oint, this case in+ol+es se+eral s".stantial clai's that the &laintiffs
constit"tional ri0hts ha+e .een infrin0ed( -n s"ch circ"'stances, ,e .elie+e it ,ill .e the
rare case, at least ,here the addition of strai0htfor,ard ne0li0ence clai's .ased on the
sa'e facts as the constit"tional clai's ,ill ca"se the state iss"es to s".stantially
&redo'inate( <hile ,e do not foreclose the &arties fro' hereafter ar0"in0, and the
district co"rt fro' hereafter considerin0, the iss"e &osed .y Q36)?cA?2A, ,e think it
"nlikely that either ,ill .e a.le to &oint to a co"nter+ailin0 interest that ,o"ld 3"stify
.if"rcatin0 this case into a federal and a state s"it that ,ill essentially d"&licate each
other(
1acts: 7indsey and *o"0hano"r clai'ed they ,ere /harassed, threatened, and assa"lted1
.y sec"rity 0"ards and <est #ifflin &olice( $hey filed a se+en-co"nt co'&laint in 5A
state co"rt( -nter alia, they alle0ed that 42 B6(*( Q983 had .een +iolated( $he
'"nici&al defendants relied on the Q983 clai' to re'o+e the case to the B(6( Gistrict
*o"rt( 7indsey and *o"0hano"r 'o+ed to re'and( Gistrict ="d0e 7ancaster 0ranted the
'otion to re'and the entire case(
Procedural +istor: #"nici&al defendants so"0ht a ,rit of 'anda'"s(
Precedents:
o Distinguishing Q44?cA &rior to 99%: a se&arate and inde&endent clai', ,hich
,o"ld ha+e .een re'o+a.le if s"ed "&on alone is 3oined ,ith other,ise
nonre'o+a.le clai's, the district co"rt 'ay deter'ine all iss"es therein, or, in its
discretion, re'and all 'atters not other,ise ,ithin its ori0inal 3"risdiction(
o Citing ="dicial -'&ro+e'ents Acts of 99%: $he district co"rt 'ay deter'ine all
iss"es therein, or, in its discretion, 'ay re'and all 'atters in ,hich 6tate la,
&redo'inates(
o Citing A'erican >ire F *as"alty *o( +( >inn ?B(6(A: ,here there is a sin0le in3"ry
to &laintiff for ,hich relief is so"0ht, arisin0 fro' an interrelated series of e+ents
or transactions, there is no se&arate or inde&endent clai' or ca"se of action "nder
Q44?cA(
o Citing 6&arks +( Hershey ?3
rd
*ir( 98A: $he diffic"lty of a+oidin0 d"&licati+e
reco+eries is a factor tendin0 to ,ei0h a0ainst liti0atin0 related federal and state
clai's in different for a(
o $he a'end'ent to Q44?cA is that it ,as desi0ned to restrict re'o+al to only
those cases fallin0 ,ithin the co"rtDs federal 8"estion 3"risdiction and to .rin0 the
re'and &ro+isions into har'ony ,ith Q36)(
o $h"s, Q44?cA &ro+ides for re'o+al or re'and only ,here the federal 8"estion
clai's are /se&arate and inde&endent1 fro' the state la, clai's ,ith ,hich they
are 3oined in the co'&laint(
o Bnless the federal 8"estion clai's re'o+ed .y the defendant ,ere /se&arate and
inde&endent1 fro' the state la, clai's, Q44?cA cannot a&&ly and the district
co"rt '"st retain the federal clai'( Hence, the district co"rtDs discretion to
re'and "nder Q44?cA can &ertain only to those state la, clai's ,hich the
district co"rt co"ld decline to hear "nder Q36)(
o @othin0 in Q36)?cA a"thoriEes a district co"rt to decline to entertain a clai' o+er
,hich it has ori0inal 3"risdiction and, accordin0ly, that section clearly does not
sanction the district co"rtDs re'and of this entire case, incl"din0 the ci+il ri0hts
clai's, to state co"rt(
o $he res"lt of an e:ercise of discretion "nder Q36)?cA in circ"'stances like those
.efore the district co"rt ,o"ld ha+e .een t,o &arallel &roceedin0s, one in federal
co"rt and one in the state syste', and a district co"rt cannot &ro&erly e:ercise its
discretion "nder Q36)?cA ,itho"t takin0 that fact into acco"nt(
o Bnder Ji..s 3"ris&r"dence, ,here the clai' o+er ,hich the district co"rt has
ori0inal 3"risdiction is dis'issed .efore trial, the district co"rt '"st decline to
decide the &endent state clai's "nless considerations of 3"dicial econo'y,
con+enience, and fairness to the &arties &ro+ide an affir'ati+e 3"stification for
doin0 so(
o Q36)?cA?2ADs a"thority sho"ld .e in+oked only ,here there is an i'&ortant
co"nter+ailin0 interest to .e ser+ed .y rele0atin0 state clai's to the state co"rt(
o $o re'and the entire case, the state clai's '"st s".stantial &redo'inate in ter's
of the sco&e of the iss"es raised(
Notes
$he 99% a'end'ent of Q44?cA eli'inated the "se of di+ersity of citiEenshi&
3"risdiction as a .asis for re'o+al "nder Q44?cA(
Section 1. Challen!in! the Su)Dect Matter Jurisdiction of the Court
Squibs
3uhr!as AG v. Marathon 6il Co. 7U.S. 8999<
Holdin0: 6ince .oth s".3ect-'atter and &ersonal 3"risdiction are re8"ired .y the
*onstit"tion and affect a federal co"rtDs &o,er to ad3"dicate a case, there is no reason to
re8"ire a district co"rt to decide s".3ect-'atter first
>acts: Gefendant re'o+ed the case to federal co"rt, and the &laintiff 'o+ed to re'and
for lack of s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction( $he defendant then 'o+ed to dis'iss for lack of
&ersonal 3"risdiction, and the Gistrict *o"rt dis'issed for lack of &ersonal 3"risdiction
,itho"t decidin0 the s".3ect 'ater 3"risdiction 8"estion(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: <here a district co"rt has .efore it a strai0htfor,ard
&ersonal 3"risdiction iss"e &resentin0 no co'&le: 8"estion of state la,, and the alle0ed
defect in s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction raises a diffic"lt and no+el 8"estion, the co"rt does
not a."se its discretion .y t"rnin0 directly to &ersonal 3"risdiction(
Notes
Ceca"se of &recl"sion doctrine, the order of decision in R"hr0as is si0nificant( $he
&laintiffDs a.ility to raise the iss"e in another trial de&ends on ,hy the case ,as
dis'issed(
>or H(, itDs int"iti+e that s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction is &ri'ary(
-n this case, there ,as a +ery co'&le: s".3ect 'atter &ro.le' and a relati+ely si'&le
&ersonal 3"risdiction &ro.le'(
United States v. United Mine ,orkers 7U.S. 89@:<
Holdin0: $he order had to .e o.eyed "ntil set aside, and that the defendants co"ld not
raise the asserted lack 3"risdiction as a defense to the conte'&t char0es(
>acts: Gistrict *o"rt iss"ed a te'&orary restrainin0 order to &re+ent a strike in 'ines that
earlier had .een seiEed .y the 0o+ern'ent( $he Bnion and its officers diso.eyed the
order, and s".se8"ently ,ere held in conte'&t of co"rt(
Gissentin0 !&inion ?=( >rankf"rterA: 6hort of an indis&"ta.le ,ant of a"thority on the
&art of the co"rt, the +ery e:istence of a co"rt &res"&&oses its &o,er to entertain a
contro+ersy, if only to decide, after deli.eration, that it has no &o,er o+er the &artic"lar
contro+ersy(
,ill v. Coastal Cor$. 7U.S. 899;<
Holdin0: 6"&re'e *o"rt "&held the a.ility of the Gistrict *o"rt to i'&ose sanctions(
>acts: 5laintiff .ro"0ht a ,ron0f"l dischar0e action a0ainst his for'er e'&loyer, ,ho
re'o+ed the action to federal co"rt( $he Gistrict *o"rt dis'issed the case for fail"re to
state a clai', and i'&osed sanctions on the &laintiff &"rs"ant to >ederal R"le (
5laintiff a&&ealed, clai'in0 the co"rt lacked s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: 6"ch an order i'&licates no constit"tional concern .eca"se
it /does not si0nify a district co"rtDs assess'ent of the le0al 'erits of the co'&laint(1 -t
therefore does not raise the iss"e of a district co"rt ad3"dicatin0 the 'erits of a case or
contro+ersy o+er ,hich it lacks 3"risdiction(
Collateral Attack for 'ack of Su)Dect(Matter Jurisdiction
#a:i' that a 3"d0'ent rendered .y a co"rt that lacked 3"risdiction o+er the s".3ect
'atter is +oid( !f co"rse, the s".3ect is 'ore co'&le: than the do0'a ,o"ld indicate(
*ollateral attack is not al,ays an a+aila.le techni8"e for challen0in0 a 3"d0'ent on the
0ro"nd that the renderin0 co"rt lacked s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction(
Restate'ent ?6econdA of ="d0'ents says the 3"d0'ent in a contested action is .eyond
collateral attack "nless there are no 3"stifia.le interests of reliance that '"st .e &rotected
and:
o $he s".3ect 'atter of the action ,as so &lainly .eyond the co"rtDs 3"risdiction that
its entertainin0 the action ,as a 'anifest a."se of a"thorityL or
o Allo,in0 the 3"d0'ent to stand ,o"ld s".stantially infrin0e the a"thority of
another tri."nal or a0ency of 0o+ern'entL or
o As a 'atter of &roced"ral fairness the &arty seekin0 to a+oid the 3"d0'ent sho"ld
ha+e o&&ort"nity .elatedly to attack the co"rtDs s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction(
-n addition, the Restate'ent ?6econdA 0enerally &er'its collateral attack on the ori0inal
co"rtDs s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction, as ,ell as on &ersonal 3"risdiction and inade8"ate
notice, in defa"lt 3"d0'ent sit"ations(
Chicot Count &raina!e &ist. H. Ba#ter State Bank 7U.S. 89@?<
Holdin0: $he lo,er federal co"rts ha+e the a"thority to deter'ine ,hether or not they
ha+e 3"risdiction to entertain the ca"se and for this &"r&ose to constr"e and a&&ly the
stat"te "nder ,hich they are asked to act( $heir deter'inations of s"ch 8"estions, ,hile
o&en to direct re+ie,, 'ay not .e assailed collaterally(
>acts: 5arties ,ho had notice ."t chose not to a&&ear in the ori0inal action atte'&ted to
attack collaterally a 3"d0'ent rendered .y a district co"rt(
/al) v. 1euerstein 7U.S. 89@?<
Holdin0: *on0ress, .eca"se its &o,er o+er the s".3ect of .ankr"&tcy is &lenary, 'ay .y
s&ecific .ankr"&tcy le0islation render 3"dicial acts taken ,ith res&ect to a de.tor ,ho'
the .ankr"&tcy la, &rotects n"llities and +"lnera.le collaterally(
>acts: $he 8"estions for decisions in Kal. ,ere ,hether a state co"rt had 3"risdiction to
render a 3"d0'ent confir'in0 a foreclos"re sale ,hile the 'ort0a0orDs &etition "nder the
Cankr"&tcy Act ,as &endin0 in a .ankr"&tcy co"rt, and, if not, ,hether the 'ort0a0or
,as &rohi.ited fro' attackin0 the state-co"rt 3"d0'ent collaterally(
G"rfee +( G"ke ?B(6( 963A
Holdin0: A 3"d0'ent is ntitled to f"ll faith and credit 2 e+en as to 8"estions of
3"risdiction 2 ,hen the second co"rtDs in8"iry discloses that those 8"estions ha+e .een
f"lly and fairly liti0ated and finally decided in the co"rt ,hich rendered the ori0inal
3"d0'ent(
>acts: A #isso"ri federal Gistrict *o"rt allo,ed collateral attack on a @e.raska
3"d0'ent 8"ietin0 title, on the 0ro"nd that considerations of territorial so+erei0nty
o"t,ei0hed the &olicies of res 3"dicata( $he @e.raska co"rtDs s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction
de&ended on ,hether the land ,as ,ithin @e.raska, ,hich /de&ended entirely "&on a
fact"al 8"estion 2 ,hether a shift in the ri+ers co"rse had .een ca"sed .y a+"lsion or
accretion(1 $he 8"estion had .een f"lly liti0ated in the @e.raska action(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: Goctrines of federal &ree'&tion or so+erei0n i''"nity 'ay
in so'e conte:ts .e controllin0( C"t no s"ch o+erridin0 considerations are &resent here(
United States Catholic Conference v. A)ortion 3i!hts Mo)ili0ation- .nc. 7U.S. 89>><
Holdin0: $he 6"&re'e *o"rt held that a non&arty ,itness, the *onference, co"ld
challen0e the co"rtDs lack of s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction in defense of a ci+il conte'&t
citation(
>acts: -n the "nderlyin0 action, AR# s"ed to re+oke the ta:-e:e'&t stat"s of the Ro'an
*atholic *h"rch .eca"se of the ch"rchDs inter+ention in fa+or of &olitical candidates ,ho
s"&&orted the ch"rchDs &osition on a.ortion(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: $he distinction .et,een s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction and
,ai+a.le defenses is not a 'ere nicety of le0al 'eta&hysics( -t rests instead on the
central &rinci&le of a free society that co"rts ha+e finite .o"nds of a"thority(
Notes
Hershkoff: $here are iss"es of .oth indi+id"al ri0hts and 0o+ern'ent a"thority( Coth are
i'&licated here( C"t it see's that 0o+ern'ent a"thority controls le0ality(
Chapter *: ,enue- .ransfer- and /oru) !on Conveniens
Section A. Henue
'eneral Prin*i.les
Ven"e is deter'ined .y stat"te, constit"tional &ro+ision, or r"le of co"rt( $he /&ro&er1
+en"e of his action de&ends on the theory of his clai', the s".3ect 'atter of his clai', the
&arties in+ol+ed, or a co'.ination of these factors(
A co'&arati+e st"dy of conte'&orary +en"e &ro+isions re+eals so'e thirteen different
fact sit"ations "&on ,hich +en"e stat"tes are &redicated(
o <here the s".3ect of action or &art thereof is sit"ated( >or actions ,hich ,ere
local, the &ro&er +en"e for s"ch actions is the co"nty ,here the s".3ect of the
action is sit"ated(
o <here the ca"se of action, or &art thereof, arose or accr"ed( *on+enience of
,itnesses(
o <here so'e fact is &resent or ha&&ened( 5ro+ide for trial of the action in the
co"nty ,here so'e &artic"lar fact or fact sit"ation related to, ."t no &art of, the
ca"se of action is &resent or ha&&ened(
o <here the defendant residents( *on+enience of the defendant(
o <here the defendant is doin0 ."siness( *on+enience of the defendant, and of
,itnesses(
o <here defendant has an office or &lace of ."siness, or an a0ent( ;"ite co''on
,hen a cor&oration, co'&any, or so'e other ty&e of ."siness or0aniEation is the
defendant(
o <here the &laintiff resides( *on+enience of the &laintiff( -n certain ty&es of cases
a0ainst certain classes of defendants 2 s"ch as an action on a forei0n ca"se of
action a0ainst a nonresidentSthis ty&e of &ro+ision is .oth lo0ical and &ractical(
o <here the &laintiff is doin0 ."siness( *on+enience of the &laintiff(
o <here the defendant 'ay .e fo"nd( *o''on la, doctrine that the ri0ht of action
follo,s the &erson( -t is diffic"lt to find any so"nd reason for +en"e .ased "&on
,here the defendant 'ay .e fo"nd(
o <here the defendant 'ay .e s"''oned or ser+ed( Also .ased "&on the co''on
la, doctrine(
o -n the co"nty desi0nated in the &laintiffDs co'&laint( Ven"e &ro+isions of this
ty&e 0i+e the &laintiff an "nnecessary econo'ic ad+anta0e(
o -n any co"nty( Croadest +en"e &ro+ision(
o <here the seat of 0o+ern'ent is located( *on+enience of the 0o+ern'ent a&&ears
to .e the controllin0 factor(
Squibs
Burlin!ton Northern 33. Co. v. 1ord 7U.S. 899;<
Holdin0: #ontana co"ld th"s ha+e decided that a nonresident defendantDs interest in
con+enience is too sli0ht to o"t,ei0h the &laintiffDs interest in s"in0 in the for"' of his
choice(
>acts: Gefendant 'o+ed for a chan0e of +en"e to Hill *o"nty, ,here it clai'ed to ha+e
its &rinci&al &lace of ."siness in #ontana( *o"rt denied the 'otion( #ontanaDs +n"e
r"les &er'it a &laintiff to s"e a cor&oration incor&orated in #ontana only in the co"ny of
its &rinci&al &lace of ."siness, ."t &er'it s"it in any co"nty a0ainst a cor&oration, like the
defendant, that is incor&orated else,here(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: Ven"e r"les 0enerally reflect e8"ity or e:&ediency in
resol+in0 dis&arate interests of &arties to a la,s"it in the &lace of trial(
Section C. 1orum Non Conveniens
'ulf @il "or.. v. 'ilbert (U.S. 19%7)
1acts: $he &rinci&le of for"' non con+eniens is si'&ly that a co"rt 'ay resist
i'&osition "&on its 3"risdiction e+en ,hen 3"risdiction is a"thoriEed .y the letter of a
0eneral +en"e stat"te( #any states ha+e 'et 'is"se of +en"e .y in+estin0 co"rts ,ith a
discretion to chan0e the &lace of trial on +ario"s 0ro"nds( $he federal la, contains no
s"ch e:&ress criteria(
o An interest to .e considered is the &ri+ate interest of the liti0ant(
o >actors to consider incl"de ease of access to so"rces of &roofL cost of o.tainin0
attendance of ,illin0 ,itnessesL &ossi.ility of +ie, of &re'isesL &ractical
&ro.le's that 'ake trial of a case easy, e:&editio"s and ine:&ensi+e(
o $he enforcea.ility of the 3"d0'ent sho"ld also .e considered(
o 5laintiff 'ay not, .y choice of an incon+enient for"', /+e:1 the defendant(
o C"t "nless the .alance is stron0ly in fa+or of the defendant, the &laintiffDs choice
of for"' sho"ld rarely .e dist"r.ed(
o >actors of &".lic interest, s"ch as ad'inistrati+e diffic"lties, also ha+e &lace in
a&&lyin0 the doctrine(
Notes
$his r"lin0 doesnDt dra, a distinction .et,een do'estic and forei0n &laintiffs( -n an
international conte:t, this can .e +ery i'&ortant(
Pi.er (ir*raft "o. v. +eyno (U.S. 1981)
Justice Marshall
+oldin!: $he *o"rt of A&&eals erred in holdin0 that &laintiffs 'ay defeat a 'otion to
dis'iss on the 0ro"nd of for"' non con+eniens 'erely .y sho,in0 that the s".stanti+e
la, that ,o"ld .e a&&lied in the alternati+e for"' is less fa+ora.le to the &laintiffs than
that of the &resent for"'( <e do not .elie+e that the Gistrict *o"rt a."sed its discretion
in ,ei0hin0 the &ri+ate and &".lic interests( $he A'erican interest in this accident is
si'&ly not s"fficient to 3"stify the enor'o"s co''it'ent of 3"dicial ti'e and reso"rces
that ,o"ld ine+ita.ly .e re8"ired if the case ,ere to .e tried here(
1acts: -n ="ly 9)6, a s'all co''ercial aircraft crashed in the 6cottish hi0hlands,
killin0 all on .oard( $he decedents ,ere all 6cottish s".3ects and residents, as are their
heirs and ne:t of kin( $here ,ere no eye,itnesses( $he aircraft ,as 'an"fact"red in
5ennsyl+ania .y 5i&er( $he &ro&ellers ,ere 'an"fact"red in !hio .y HartEell( $he
aircraft ,as re0istered in Jreat Critain( Reyno ,as a&&ointed ad'inistrati: of estates of
decedents and co''enced ,ron0f"l death actions a0ainst 5i&er and HartEell in
*alifornia state co"rt( Reyno ad'itted that the actions ,ere filed in the B(6( .eca"se of
fa+ora.le &rod"cts lia.ility la,s( 6"it ,as re'o+ed to B(6( Gistrict *o"rt in *alifornia(
5i&er then 'o+ed for transfer to Gistrict *o"rt in 5ennsyl+ania( After it ,as transferred,
5i&er and HartEell 'o+ed to dis'iss on the 0ro"nds of for"' non con+eniens( Gistrict
*o"rt 0ranted these 'otions, relyin0 on .alancin0 test fro' Jil.ert Hs"&ra M heheheI(
Procedural +istor: Reyno a&&ealed to $hird *irc"it, ,hich re+ersed Gistrict *o"rt and
re'anded case( 5i&er and HartEell a&&ealed to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
o 5laintiffs ty&ically select a for"' ,here choice-of-la, r"les are 'ost
ad+anta0eo"s( $h"s, if concl"si+e or s".stantial ,ei0ht ,ere 0i+en to the
&ossi.ility of a chan0e in la,, the for"' non con+eniens doctrine ,o"ld .eco'e
+irt"ally "seless(
o *onsiderin0 chan0e in la, ,o"ld also &ose &ractical &ro.le's( -f the &ossi.ility
of a chan0e in la, ,ere 0i+en s".stantial ,ei0ht, a diffic"lt choice-of-la,
analysis ,o"ld .eco'e e:tre'ely i'&ortant(
o -f the re'edy &ro+ided .y the alternati+e for"' is so clearly inade8"ate or
"nsatisfactory that it is no re'edy at all, the "nfa+ora.le chan0e in la, 'ay .e
0i+en s".stantial ,ei0ht(
o 5res"'&tion in fa+or of the &laintiffDs choice of for"' a&&lies ,ith less force
,hen the &laintiff or real &arties in interest are forei0n(
o $he for"' non con+eniens deter'ination is co''itted to the so"nd discretion of
the trial co"rt( -t 'ay .e re+ersed only ,hen there has .een a clear a."se of
discretion(
o $he Gistrict *o"rt did not act "nreasona.ly in concl"din0 that fe,er e+identiary
&ro.le's ,o"ld .e &osed if the trial ,ere held in 6cotland(
o Gefendants '"st &ro+ide eno"0h infor'ation to ena.le the Gistrict *o"rt to
.alance the &artiesD interests( !"r e:a'ination of the record con+inces "s that
s"fficient infor'ation ,as &ro+ided here(
o $he Gistrict *o"rt correctly concl"ded that the &ro.le's &osed .y the ina.ility to
i'&lead &otential third &arty defendants clearly s"&&orted holdin0 the trial in
6cotland(
o >orcin0 &etitioners to rely on actions for inde'nity or contri."tions ,o"ld .e
/."rdenso'e1 ."t not /"nfair(1 >indin0 that trial in the &laintiffDs chosen for"'
,o"ld .e ."rdenso'e, ho,e+er, is s"fficient to s"&&ort dis'issal on 0ro"nds of
for"' non con+eniens(
Notes
$he doctrine of for"' non con+eniens o&erates to a'eliorate the ."rden i'&osed "&on a
defendant ,hen 3"risdictional r"les ,o"ld &er'it a &laintiff to force her to liti0ate in an
es&ecially incon+enient for"'( Ho,e+er, the doctrine does not relie+e the co"rt of the
."rden of decidin0 ,hether it has 3"risdiction to hear the la,s"it(
!ne i'&ortant re8"ire'ent is that there '"st e:ist another 'ore con+enient for"' ,here
the &laintiff can o.tain ade8"ate relief(
Gefendant also 'ay instit"te a s"it in another co"rt to en3oin &laintiff fro' &roceedin0 in
the o.3ectiona.le for"'( Ho,e+er, defendant "s"ally '"st de'onstrate that &laintiff
chose the for"' to 0ain so'e for' of ad+anta0e or to harass the defendant(
Squibs
&e Cedeno v. Arosa Mercantile- S.A. 7NF Su$.Ct. 89::<
Holdin0: A 'otion to dis'iss on the .asis of for"' non con+eniens is addressed to the
co"rtDs discretion to ref"se to retain and entertain an action, other,ise &ro&erly .efore it,
and therefore &res"&&oses the e:istence of a +alid 3"risdiction(
.slamic 3e$u)lic of .ran v. Pahlavi 7N.F. 89>@<
Holdin0: $he a&&lication of the doctrine of for"' non con+eniens is a 'atter of
discretion for the lo,er co"rts and that those co"rts had not a."sed that discretion( @e,
NorkDs co"rts ,ere not re8"ired to entertain liti0ation that had no connection ,ith the
state 2 es&ecially ,hen, as in this case, the ."rden on the stateDs co"rts ,o"ld .e
tre'endo"s(
>acts: -ran s"ed the 6hah and his ,ife to reco+er P35 .illion in -ranian f"nds, ,hich they
alle0edly had 'isa&&ro&riated(
Chapter 0: Ascertainin the Applica"le 1a2
Section A. State 'a% in the 1ederal Courts
Swift v. >yson (U.S. 18%2)
Justice Stor
+oldin!: $he R"les of Gecision Act co''anded federal co"rts to follo, si'&ly the
stat"tory la, of the states( <e ha+e not no, the sli0htest diffic"lty in holdin0 that this
section, "&on its tr"e intend'ent and constr"ction, is strictly li'ited to local stat"tes and
local "sa0es of the character .efore stated, and does not e:tend to contracts and other
instr"'ents of a co''ercial nat"re, the tr"e inter&retation and effect ,hereof are to .e
so"0ht, not in the decisions of the local tri."nals, ."t in the 0eneral &rinci&les and
doctrines of co''ercial 3"ris&r"dence(
1acts: 6o'e #aine land s&ec"lators sold land that they did not o,n to so'e @e,
Norkers( $he @e, Norkers tho"0ht that the s&ec"lators already o,ned the land( @e,
Norker $yson 0a+e the s&ec"lators ne0otia.le instr"'ents ?e(0( checksA instead of 'oney
to &ay for their in+est'ents( $yson /acce&ted1 a .ill of e:chan0e in ret"rn for a si:-
'onth &ost&one'ent in his &ay'ents on the land contract( !ne of the s&ec"lators 0a+e
$ysonDs note to =ose&h 6,ift( <hen 6,ift so"0ht &ay'ent fro' $yson, $yson ref"sed to
&ay on the 0ro"nd that his o.li0ation ,as "nenforcea.le since he had .een ind"ced to
/acce&t1 the .ill .y the s&ec"latorDs fra"d( $he &rinci&al 8"estion .efore the co"rt ,as
,hether the case sho"ld .e 0o+erned .y @e, Nork contract la,, "nder ,hich the fra"d
taintin0 the transaction &ro+ided a defense for $yson, or .y the ne, la, of ne0otia.le
instr"'ents that ,as de+elo&in0 in recent 9n0lish decisions(
Precedents:
o Interpreting 28 B(6(*( Q652: $he la,s of the se+eral states, e:ce&t ,here the
*onstit"tion or treaties of the Bnited 6tates or Acts of *on0ress other,ise re8"ire
or &ro+ide, shall .e re0arded as r"les of decision in ci+il actions in the co"rts of
the Bnited 6tates, in cases ,here they a&&ly(
o -n the ordinary "se of lan0"a0e it ,ill hardly .e contended that the decisions of
*o"rts constit"te la,s( $hey are, at 'ost, only e+idence of ,hat the la,s are, and
are not of the'sel+es la,s(
o $he la,s of a state are 'ore "s"ally "nderstood to 'ean the r"les and enact'ents
&ro'"l0ated .y the le0islati+e a"thority thereof, or lon0 esta.lished local c"sto's
ha+in0 the force of la,s(
o -t ne+er has .een s"&&osed .y "s, that the RGA did a&&ly to the constr"ction of
ordinary contracts or other ,ritten instr"'ents and es&ecially to 8"estions of
0eneral co''ercial la,, ,here the state tri."nals are called "&on to &erfor' the
like f"nctions as o"rsel+es(
Notes
="stice 6tory ,as a for'er la, &rofessor and ,anted to ,rite a national co''ercial la,(
Bnder 6,ift, state co"rts didnDt ha+e to follo, federal decisions(
6,ift is an interestin0 co'.ination of lack of deference to /3"d0e-'ade1 la, and 3"dicial
discretion(
;rie +. "o. v. >o).kins (U.S. 19B8)
Justice Brandeis
+oldin!: <e 'erely declare that in a&&lyin0 the doctrine H6,iftI this *o"rt and the
lo,er co"rts ha+e in+aded ri0hts ,hich in o"r o&inion are reser+ed .y the *onstit"tion to
the se+eral states M $he *irc"it *o"rt of A&&eals r"led that the 8"estion of lia.ility is
one of 0eneral la,L and on that 0ro"nd declined to decide the iss"e of state la,( As ,e
hold this ,as error, the 3"d0'ent is re+ersed and the case re'anded to it for f"rther
&roceedin0s in confor'ity ,ith o"r o&inion(
1acts: $o'&kinsD ar' ,as se+ered .y a &assin0 train as he ,as ,alkin0 alon0 a foot&ath
located on railroad &ro&erty( $o'&kins acc"sed the railroad of actin0 ne0li0ently( Bnder
5ennsyl+ania la,, $o'&kins ,as re0arded as a tres&assed and the railroad 'erely o,ed
hi' a d"ty to a+oid ,anton ne0li0ence( $he 'a3ority r"le in 'ost states, ho,e+er, ,as
that a railroad o,es a d"ty of ordinary care to a tra+eler on a &arallel foot&ath(
$o'&kinsD la,yers tried to a+oid the harsh 5ennsyl+ania r"le .y s"in0 the @e, Nork-
.ased railroad in federal co"rt( $he Gistrict *o"rt a&&lied /0eneral la,1 and a,arded
$o'&kins da'a0es(
Procedural +istor: 9rie a&&ealed to *o"rt of A&&eals, ,hich affir'ed Gistrict *o"rt(
Precedents:
o Citing Clack F <hite $a:ica. +( Cro,n F Nello, $a:ica. ?B(6(A: Kno,in0 that
its contract ,o"ld .e +oid "nder the co''on la, of Kent"cky, Cro,n F Nello,
reincor&orated in $ennessee for the sake of .ein0 a.le to re'o+e s"its in
Kent"cky to federal co"rt(
o Citing Calti'ore F !hio R(R( *o( +( Ca"0h ?B(6(A: $he *onstit"tion of the
Bnited 6tates reco0niEes and &reser+es the a"tono'y and inde&endence of the
states 2 inde&endence in their le0islati+e and 3"dicial de&art'ents( Any
interference ,ith either, e:ce&t as th"s &er'itted, is an in+asion of the a"thority of
the state, and, to that e:tent, a denial of its inde&endence(
o Citing K"hn +( >air'ont *oal ?B(6(A ?Hol'es dissentin0A: 6,ift and $yson
doctrine rests "&on the ass"'&tion that there is /a transcendental .ody of la,
o"tside of any &artic"lar 6tate ."t o.li0atory ,ithin it "nless and "ntil chan0ed .y
stat"te(1 7a, in the sense in ,hich co"rts s&eak of it today does not e:ist ,itho"t
so'e definite a"thority .ehind it( $he a"thority and only a"thority is the 6tate,
and if that .e so, the +oice ado&ted .y the 6tate as its o,n sho"ld "tter the last
,ord(
o $he 'ore recent research of a co'&etent scholar ?*harles <arrenA, ,ho e:a'ined
the ori0inal R"les of Gecision Act, esta.lished that the constr"ction 0i+en to it .y
the *o"rt ,as erroneo"s( $he &"r&ose of the section on state la, ,as 'erely to
'ake certain that, in all 'atters e:ce&t those in ,hich so'e federal la, is
controllin0, the federal co"rts e:ercisin0 3"risdiction in di+ersity of citiEenshi&
cases ,o"ld a&&ly as their r"les of decision the la, of the state, "n,ritten as ,ell
as ,ritten(
o Gefects of 6,ift incl"de follo,in0: 5ersistence of state co"rts in their o,n
o&inions &re+ented "nifor'ityL and the i'&ossi.ility of disco+erin0 a satisfactory
line of de'arcation .et,een the &ro+ince of 0eneral la, and that of local la,
de+elo&ed a ne, ,ell of "ncertainties(
o 6,ift 'ade ri0hts en3oyed "nder the "n,ritten /0eneral la,1 +ary accordin0 to
,hether enforce'ent ,as so"0ht in the state or in the federal co"rtL and the
&ri+ile0e of selectin0 the co"rt in ,hich the ri0ht sho"ld .e deter'ined ,as
conferred "&on the non-citiEen(
o $here is no federal 0eneral co''on la,( *on0ress has no &o,er to declare
s".stanti+e r"les of co''on la, a&&lica.le in a state ,hether they .e local in
their nat"re or /0eneral,1 .e they co''ercial la, or a &art of the la, of torts(
And no cla"se in the *onstit"tion &"r&orts to confer s"ch a &o,er "&on the
federal co"rts(
&issentin! 6$inion 7Justice Butler<:
o As a 0eneral r"le, this *o"rt ,il not consider any 8"estion not raised .elo, and
&resented .y the &etition( Here it does not decide either of the 8"estions
&resented, ."t, chan0in0 the r"le of decision in force since the fo"ndation of the
0o+ern'ent, re'ands the case to .e ad3"d0ed accordin0 to a standard ne+er
.efore dee'ed &er'issi.le(
o @o liti0ant has e+er challen0ed the &o,er of *on0ress to esta.lish the r"le as
constr"ed .y $yson(
o -f defendant had a&&lied for and o.tained a ,rit of certiorari "&on the clai' that
*on0ress has no &o,er to &rescri.e the r"le of decision, section 34 as constr"ed,
it ,o"ld ha+e .een the d"ty of this *o"rt to iss"e the &rescri.in0 certificate to the
Attorney Jeneral in order that the Bnited 6tates 'i0ht inter+ene and .e heard on
the constit"tional 8"estion(
o $he constit"tional +alidity of the r"le need not .e considered, .eca"se "nder the
la,, as fo"nd .y the co"rts of 5ennsyl+ania and 0enerally thro"0ho"t the co"ntry,
it is &lain that the e+idence re8"ired a findin0 that &laintiff ,as 0"ilty of
ne0li0ence that contri."ted to ca"se his in3"ries, and that the 3"d0'ent .elo,
sho"ld .e re+ersed "&on that 0ro"nd(
Concurrin! 6$inion 7Justice 3eed<:
o As the 'a3ority o&inion sho,s, this *o"rt is no, of the +ie, that /la,s1 incl"de
/decisions1, it is "nnecessary to 0o f"rther and declare that the /co"rse &"rs"ed1
,as /"nconstit"tional,1 instead of 'erely erroneo"s(
o - a' not a all s"re ,hether, in the a.sence of federal stat"tory direction, federal
co"rts ,o"ld .e co'&elled to follo, state decisions(
o -f the o&inion co''its this *o"rt to the &osition that *on0ress is ,itho"t &o,er
to declare ,hat r"les of s".stanti+e la, shall 0o+ern the federal co"rts, that
concl"sion also see's 8"estiona.le(
Notes
@ote that there ,o"ld ha+e .een a different res"lt if the &arallel &ath ,as declared
/c"sto'ary(1
<o"ld a federal co''on la, decision create a ne, 3"risdictional niche "nder federal
8"estion s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction4
>ederal co"rts can create co''on la, inter&retation on federal 8"estions(
*o"rts had "sed federal 0eneral la,-'akin0 &o,er "nder 6,ift 'ore .roadly than
*on0ress had the &o,er to le0islate(
$here '"st .e a &olitical so"rce of le0iti'acy for the co"rts(
-s Crandeis clai'in0 that the res"lt in 6,ift ,as "nconstit"tional .eca"se a re0i'e of
federal co''on la, 'akin0 is not a"thoriEed .y any constit"tional &ro+ision4 !r is he
clai'in0 that federal co"rts cannot 'ake co''on la, for traditionally state ca"ses of
action, s"ch as contracts, torts, and &ro&erty4
'uaranty >rust "o. v. ?ork (U.S. 19%&)
Justice 1rankfurter
+oldin!: $he federal co"rts enforced 6tate-created s".stanti+e ri0hts if the 'ode of
&roceedin0 and re'edy ,ere consonant ,ith the traditional .ody of e8"ita.le re'edies,
&ractice and &roced"re, and in so doin0 they ,ere enforcin0 ri0hts created .y the 6tates
and not arisin0 "nder any inherent or stat"tory federal la,( -t is therefore i''aterial
,hether stat"tes of li'itation are characteriEed either as /s".stanti+e1 or /&roced"ral1 in
6tate co"rt( As to conse8"ences that so inti'ately affect reco+ery or non-reco+ery a
federal co"rt in a di+ersity case sho"ld follo, 6tate la,( $he 3"d0'ent is re+ersed and
the case is re'anded for &roceedin0s not inconsistent ,ith this o&inion(
1acts: Nork .ro"0ht a di+ersity s"it alle0in0 that J"aranty had .reached its fid"ciary
d"ties( NorkDs co'&laint in+ol+ed alle0ations of fra"d, relief for ,hich ,as 0o+erned .y
e8"ita.le &rinci&les( $he *irc"it *o"rt of A&&eals fo"nd that in a s"it .ro"0ht on the
e8"ity side of a federal district co"rt the co"rt ,as not re8"ired to a&&ly the state stat"te
of li'itations(
Precedents:
o Construing 9rie R( *o( +( $o'&kins: $he intent of that decision ,as to ins"re
that, in all cases ,here a federal co"rt is e:ercisin0 3"risdiction solely .eca"se of
di+ersity of citiEenshi& of the &arties, the o"tco'e of the liti0ation in the federal
co"rt sho"ld .e su)stantiall the same as it ,o"ld .e if tried in a state co"rt(
o -n di+ersity cases, federal co"rts ha+e not differentiated in their re0ard for 6tate
la, .et,een actions at la, and s"its in e8"ity(
o Ri0hts in e8"ity ,ere fre8"ently defined .y le0islati+e enact'ent and as s"ch
kno,n and res&ected .y federal co"rts(
o -n 0i+in0 federal co"rts /co0niEance1 of e8"ity s"its in cases of di+ersity
3"risdiction, *on0ress ne+er 0a+e, nor did the federal co"rts e+er clai', the &o,er
to deny s".stanti+e ri0hts created .y 6tate la, or to create s".stanti+e ri0hts
denied .y 6tate la,(
o -n di+ersity cases, co"rts cannot afford reco+ery if the ri0ht to reco+er is 'ade
"na+aila.le .y the 6tate nor can it s".stantially affect the enforce'ent of the ri0ht
as 0i+en .y the 6tate(
o <e are concerned ,ith ,hether a stat"tory li'itation is a 'atter s".stance in that
it si0nificantly affects the res"lt of a liti0ation for a federal co"rt to disre0ard a
la, of a 6tate4
o $he o&eration of a do".le syste' of conflictin0 la,s in the sa'e 6tate is &lainly
hostile to the rei0n of la,(
Notes
6tate &roced"res are s".stanti+e ,hen they are ine:trica.ly tied to a ri0ht(
$he 'ischief that di+ersity ,as intended to c"re is 3"dicial .ias(
Squibs
3a!an v. Merchants Transfer = ,arehouse Co. 7U.S. 89@9<
Holdin0: >R*5 r"le 3 ,as not intended to 0o+ern 8"estions concernin0 the tollin0 of
stat"tes of li'itations, and, therefore, state la, ,o"ld deter'ine in di+ersity ,hen the
stat"te ,as tolled(
,oods v. .nterstate 3ealt Co. 7U.S. 89@9<
Holdin0: A $ennessee cor&oration co"ld not 'aintain a di+ersity action in a federal co"rt
in #ississi&&i if, .y +irt"e of its fail"re to 8"alify to do ."siness in #ississi&&i, the
#ississi&&i state co"rts ,ere closed to it(
Cohen v. Beneficial .ndustrial 'oan Cor$. 7U.S. 89@9<
Holdin0: >R*5 r"le 23( did not contradict the @e, =ersey stat"te, ."t ,as addressed to
inde&endent concerns(
Gissentin0 !&inion ?="stice R"tled0eA: 9rie in+ol+ed an iss"e that ,as clearly
s".stanti+e, ,hile these cases &resented iss"es that ,ere at least ar0"a.ly &roced"ral(
7yr, v. 7lue +i,$e +ural ;le*tri* "oo.erative: n*. (U.S. 19&8)
="stice Crennan
Holdin0: <e do not think the likelihood of a federal 3"ry reachin0 a different res"lt is so
stron0 as to re8"ire the federal &ractice of 3"ry deter'ination of dis&"ted fact"al iss"es to
yield to the state r"le in the interest of "nifor'ity of o"tco'e(
>acts: 5laintiff ,as in3"red ,hile connectin0 &o,er lines( !ne of defendantDs
affir'ati+e defenses ,as that "nder the 6o"th *arolina <ork'enDs *o'&ensation Act,
the &laintiff had the stat"s of a stat"tory e'&loyee of the defendant, and th"s ,as .arred
fro' s"in0 the defendant( Bnder 6o"th *arolina, a 3"d0e ,o"ld 'ake the deter'ination(
Bnder federal &ractice, it ,as a fact"al iss"e for 3"ry consideration( ;"estion concernin0
this defense is ,hether &laintiff, state &ractice not,ithstandin0, is entitled to a 3"ry
deter'ination of the fact"al iss"es raised .y this defense(
5roced"ral History: Gistrict *o"rt r"led for &laintiff( *irc"it *o"rt o+err"led on 0ro"nds
that Gistrict *o"rt hadnDt follo,ed 6o"th *arolina s".stanti+e la,( 5laintiff a&&ealed to
6"&re'e *o"rt(
5recedents:
o Distinguishing J"aranty $r"st *o( +( Nork ?B(6(A: >ederal co"rts sho"ld confor'
as near as 'ay .e to state r"les e+en of for' and 'ode ,here the state r"les 'ay
.ear s".stantially on the 8"estion of ,hether the liti0ation ,o"ld co'e o"t one
,ay in the federal co"rt and another ,ay in the state co"rt( C"t there are
affir'ati+e co"nter+ailin0 considerations at ,ork here(
o Citing Herron +( 6o"thern 5acific *o( ?B(6( 93A: A federal 3"d0e ref"sed to .e
.o"nd .y a &ro+ision of the AriEona *onstit"tion ,hich 'ade the 3"ry the sole
ar.iter of the 8"estion of contri."tory ne0li0ence( $his *o"rt s"stained the action
of the trial 3"d0e, holdin0 that /state la,s cannot alter the essential character or
f"nction of a federal co"rt and state stat"tes ,hich ,o"ld interfere ,ith the
a&&ro&riate &erfor'ance of that f"nction are not .indin0 "&on the federal co"rt
"nder either the R"les of Gecision Act( $he f"nction assi0ned to the 3"ry is an
essential factor in the &rocess for ,hich the >ederal *onstit"tion &ro+ides(
o $he concl"sion is inesca&a.le that the Ada's ?6o"th *arolina 6"&re'e *o"rtA
holdin0 is 0ro"nded in the &ractical consideration that the co"rts had .eco'e
acc"sto'ed to decidin0 the fact"al iss"e of i''"nity ,itho"t the aid of 3"ries(
$h"s the re8"ire'ent a&&ears to .e 'erely a for' and 'ode of enforcin0 the
i''"nity and not a r"le intended to .e .o"nd "& ,ith the definition of the ri0hts
and o.li0ations of the &arties(
o $he 6e+enth A'end'ent assi0ns the decisions of dis&"ted 8"estions of fact to the
3"ry( $he &olicy of "nifor' enforce'ent of state-created ri0hts and o.li0ations
cannot in e+ery case e:act co'&liance ,ith a state r"le 2 not .o"nd "& ,ith ri0hts
and o.li0ations 2 ,hich disr"&ts the federal syste' of allocatin0 f"nctions
.et,een 3"d0e and 3"ry(
o $he in8"iry here is ,hether the federal &olicy fa+orin0 3"ry decisions of dis&"ted
fact 8"estions sho"ld yield to the state r"le in the interest of f"rtherin0 the
o.3ecti+e that the liti0ation sho"ld not co'e o"t one ,ay in the federal co"rt and
another ,ay in the state co"rt(
o $here is not &resent here the certainty that a different res"lt ,o"ld follo, or e+en
the stron0 &ossi.ility that this ,o"ld .e the case(
Notes
Cyrd calls on the *o"rt to first e:a'ine ,hether the state r"le in 8"estion is .o"nd "&
,ith state-created ri0hts and o.li0ations( Hershkoff says that this e'&hasiEes federalist
concerns rather than liti0antsD ri0hts(
9+en if the r"le does affect ri0hts and o.li0ations, co"rts ha+e to .alance state interest in
"nifor'ity ,ith federal interest in &roced"re( $his .alance is ad hoc(
$here is an interest in &re+entin0 for"' sho&&in0(
*o"rt choosin0 state r"le in so'e &roced"ral cases and federal r"le ,ith s".stanti+e &arts
if it is &"rs"ant to *onstit"tional a"thority(
>ederal la, can dis&lace state la, "nless it is "nconstit"tional or "na"thoriEed "nder
R9A or RGA(
$he con+entional 0"ideline is: s".stanti+e T o"tside co"rtho"seL &roced"ral T inside
co"rtho"se(
Squibs
Allstate .ns. Co. v. Charneski 7:
th
Cir. 89C?<
Holdin0: *o"rt dis'issed an action for a 3"d0'ent declarin0 an ins"rance co'&anyDs
nonlia.ility, r"lin0 that declaratory relief is discretionary and need not .e 0ranted ,hen it
,o"ld create an "nnecessary federal-state conflict(
>acts: <isconsin had &assed a 0eneral stat"te &ro+idin0 declaratory relief( Ho,e+er, this
stat"te ,as held not a&&lica.le .y the <isconsin 6"&re'e *o"rt( $he <isconsin
6"&re'e *o"rt held that to allo, declaratory relief in s"ch circ"'stances ,o"ld "nderc"t
its &olicy of direct actions a0ainst an ins"rance co'&any(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: $he federal interest in 0rantin0 declaratory relief is sli0ht(
Relief "nder the federal Geclaratory ="d0'ents Act is discretionary(
Bernhardt v. Pol!ra$hic Co. of America- .nc. 7U.S. 89EC<
Holdin0: $he 6"&re'e *o"rt r"led that the Gistrict *o"rt ,as correct in a&&lyin0
Ver'ont la, concernin0 ar.itration and denyin0 the stay(
>acts: Gefendant 'o+ed for a stay &endin0 ar.itration in @e, Nork &"rs"ant to a
contract(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: $he re'edy .y ar.itration, ,hate+er its 'erits or
shortco'in0s, s".stantially affects the ca"se of action created .y the 6tate( Ar.itration
carries no ri0ht to trial .y 3"ry(
Hanna v. Plu)er (U.S. 19/&)
Chief Justice ,arren
+oldin!: $he ado&tion of R"le 4?dA?A, desi0ned to control ser+ice of &rocess in
di+ersity actions, neither e:ceeded the con0ressional 'andate e'.odied in the R"les
9na.lin0 Act nor trans0ressed constit"tional .o"nds, and that the R"le is therefore the
standard a0ainst ,hich the Gistrict *o"rt sho"ld ha+e 'eas"red the ade8"acy of the
ser+ice( Accordin0ly, ,e re+erse the decision of the *o"rt of A&&eals(
1acts: 5etitioner, a citiEen of !hio, filed her co'&laint in G(#ass( 6er+ed defendant .y
lea+in0 co&ies ,ith his ,ife at his residence, in co'&liance ,ith >R*5 4?dA?A(
Gefendant clai'ed ser+ice ,as contrary to &ro+ision in #ass( Jeneral 7a,s that re8"ired
deli+ery .y hand(
Procedural +istor: Gistrict *o"rt 0ranted defendant s"''ary 3"d0'ent and *o"rt of
A&&eals affir'ed(
Precedents:
o Citing 6i..ach +( <ilson F *o( ?B(6(A: $he test '"st .e ,hether a r"le reall
re!ulates $rocedure, - the 3"dicial &rocess for enforcin0 ri0hts and d"ties
reco0niEed .y s".stanti+e la, and for 3"stly ad'inisterin0 re'edy and redress for
disre0ard or infraction of the'(
o Citing #ississi&&i 5".( *or&( +( #"r&hee ?B(6(A: *on0ressD &rohi.ition of any
alteration of s".stanti+e ri0hts of liti0ants ,as o.+io"sly not addressed to s"ch
incidental effects as necessarily attend the ado&tion of the &rescri.ed ne, r"les of
&roced"re "&on the ri0hts of liti0ants ,ho, a0reea.ly to r"les of &ractice and
&roced"re, ha+e .een .ro"0ht .efore a co"rt a"thoriEed to deter'ine their ri0hts(
o Citing Cyrd +( Cl"e Rid0e R"ral 9lec( *oo&erati+e ?B(6(A: /!"tco'e
deter'ination1 analysis ,as ne+er intended to ser+e as a talis'an(
o Distinguishing J"aranty $r"st *o( +( Nork ?B(6(A: *hoices .et,een state and
federal la, are to .e 'ade not .y a&&lication of any a"to'atic /lit'"s &a&er1
criterion, ."t rather .y reference to the &olicies "nderlyin0 the 9rie r"le(
o Citing 7"'.er'enDs #"t"al *as"alty *o( +( <ri0ht ?5
th
*ir( 963A: #atters
,hich relate to the ad'inistration of le0al &roceedin0s, an area in ,hich federal
co"rts ha+e traditionally e:erted stron0 inherent &o,er, co'&letely aside fro' the
&o,ers *on0ress e:&ressly conferred in the R"les( $he &"r&ose of the 9rie
doctrine ,as ne+er to .ottle "& federal co"rts ,ith Ko"tco'e deter'inati+eD and
Kinte0ral-relationsD sto&&ers(
o -t is do".tf"l that, e+en if there ,ere no >ederal R"le 'akin0 it clear that in hand
ser+ice is not re8"ired in di+ersity actions, the 9rie r"le ,o"ld ha+e o.li0ated the
Gistrict *o"rt to follo, #ass( 5roced"re(
o $he 9ire r"le is rooted in &art in a realiEation that it ,o"ld .e "nfair for the
character or res"lt of a liti0ation 'aterially to differ .eca"se the s"it had .een
.ro"0ht in federal co"rt( $he decision ,as also in &art a reaction to the &ractice of
/for"'-sho&&in01 ,hich had 0ro,n "& in res&onse to the r"le of 6,ift(
o @ot only are nons".stantial, or tri+ial, +ariations not likely to raise the sort of
e8"al &rotection &ro.le's ,hich tro".led the *o"rt in 9ireL they are also "nlikely
to infl"ence the choice of for"'(
o $he difference .et,een the t,o r"les ,o"ld .e of scant rele+ance to the choice of
for"'(
o $he line .et,een /s".stance1 and /&roced"re1 shifts as the le0al conte:t chan0es(
o <hen a sit"ation is co+ered .y one of the >ederal R"les, the co"rt has .een
instr"cted to a&&ly the >ederal R"le, and can ref"se to do so only if the Ad+isory
*o''ittee, this *o"rt, and *on0ress erred in their &ri'a facie 3"d0'ent that the
R"le in 8"estion trans0resses neither the ter's of the R9A nor *onst( restrictions(
o >or the *onst( &ro+ision for a fed( *o"rt syste' ?a"0'ented .y the @ecessary and
5ro&er *la"seA carries ,ith it con0ressional &o,er to 'ake r"les 0o+ernin0 the
&ractice in those co"rts, ,hich incl"des 'atters that are rationall ca$a)le of
)ein! classified as either su)stance or $rocedure(
Concurrin! 6$inion 7Justice +arlan<:
o $o 'y 'ind the &ro&er line of a&&roach in deter'inin0 ,hether to a&&ly a state or
a federal r"le is to stay close to .asic &rinci&les .y in8"irin0 if the choice of r"le
,o"ld s".stantially affect those &ri'ary decisions res&ectin0 h"'an cond"ct
,hich o"r constit"tional syste' lea+es to state re0"lation(
o $he *o"rt ,o"ld ha+e the federal r"le a&&ly no 'atter ho, serio"sly it fr"strated
a 6tateDs s".stanti+e re0"lation, so lon0 as a reasona.le 'an co"ld characteriEe it
as &roced"ral(
Notes
<hile 6i..ach doesnDt 0i+e 0reat ,ei0ht to 28 B(6(*( Q2%)2?.A, it is still 0ood la,(
Ho, does <arren define the distinction .et,een s".stance and &roced"re in Hanna4
Ho, does he define it for the R9A4 >or the RGA4 Are the t,o r"les the sa'e4
HannaDs /ar0"a.ly &roced"ral1 test only controls cases ,here *on0ress has &assed a
stat"te creatin0 la, for di+ersity actions(
<here there is no >R*5 and the federal r"le in 8"estion is ,holly 3"d0e-'ade, ,hether
state or federal la, sho"ld .e a&&lied is controlled .y the RGA( <here the >R*5
controls, the R9A is the &ro&er test(
$o "nderstand ho, 9rie o&erates in di+ersity cases, it is i'&ortant to distin0"ish .et,een
the &ertinence of federal r"les and their +alidity(
R9A &rotects state &rero0ati+es 7966 than RGA(
Squibs
Si))ach v. ,ilson = Co. 7U.S. 89@8<
="stice Ro.erts
Holdin0: $he &ro'"l0ation of R"le 35 ,as ,ithin the a'.it of con0ressional &o,er,
since R"le 35 does not /a.rid0e, enlar0e, or 'odify s".stanti+e ri0hts, in the 0"ise of
re0"latin0 &roced"re(
>acts: 5laintiff s"ed defendant in an -llinois federal district co"rt for da'a0es inflicted in
-ndiana( G(*o"rt ordered that 5 "nder0o a &hysical e:a' &"rs"ant to >R*5 35, des&ite
an -llinois &olicy for.iddin0 co'&"lsory &hysical e:a's(
Gissentin0 !&inion ?="stice >rankf"rterA: $o dra, any inference of tacit a&&ro+al fro'
non-action .y *on0ress is to a&&eal to "nreality( And so - concl"de that to 'ake the
drastic chan0e that R"le 35 so"0ht to introd"ce ,o"ld re8"ire e:&licit le0islation(
#alker v. (r)*o Steel "or.. (U.S. 1986)
Justice Marshall
+oldin!: $here is si'&ly no reason ,hy, in the a.sence of a controllin0 federal r"le, an
action .ased on state la, ,hich concededly ,o"ld .e .arred in the state co"rts .y the
state stat"te of li'itations sho"ld &roceed thro"0h liti0ation to 3"d0'ent in federal co"rt
solely .eca"se of the fort"ity that there is di+ersity of citiEenshi& .et,een the liti0ants(
$he &olicies "nderlyin0 di+ersity 3"risdiction do not s"&&ort s"ch a distinction .et,een
state and federal &laintiffs, and 9ire and its &ro0eny do not &er'it it( $he 3"d0'ent of the
*o"rt of A&&eals is confir'ed(
1acts: 5( ,as in3"red on A"0"st 22, 9)5( 6"ed G, a forei0n cor&oration( *o'&laint
,as filed on A"0"st 9, 9))( Altho"0h s"''ons ,as iss"ed that sa'e day, ser+ice of
&rocess ,as not 'ade on res&ondentDs a"thoriEed ser+ice a0ent "ntil Gec( , 9))( 6tate
la, does not dee' the action /co''enced1 for &"r&oses of the stat"te of li'itations "ntil
ser+ice of the s"''ons on the defendant(
Procedural +istor: G(*o"rt dis'issed( *( of A( affir'ed(
Precedents:
o Citing Ra0an +( #erchants $ransfer F <areho"se *o( ?B(6(A: <e cannot 0i+e the
ca"se of action lon0er life in the federal co"rt than it ,o"ld ha+e had in the state
co"rt ,itho"t addin0 so'ethin0 to the ca"se of action( 6er+ice of s"''ons
stat"te controlled .eca"se it ,as an inte0ral &art of the state stat"te of li'itations,
and "nder Nork, that stat"te of li'itations ,as &art of the state-la, ca"se of
action(
o Citing Hanna +( 5l"'er ?B(6(A: $he 9ire r"le has ne+er .een in+oked to +oid a
>ederal R"le( $he sco&e of the >ederal R"le ?in &ast casesA ,as not as .road as
the losin0 &arty "r0ed, and therefore there ,as no conflict(
o 6tare decisis ,ei0hs hea+ily a0ainst 5( .eca"se he seeks to ha+e "s o+err"le
Ra0an(
o A&&lication of Hanna is &re'ised on /direct collision1 ,ith federal r"le(
o >irst 8"estion '"st .e ,hether the >ederal R"le is s"fficiently .road to control
the iss"e( !nly then does the Hanna analysis a&&ly(
o $his is not to s"00est that the >R*5 sho"ld .e narro,ly constr"ed 3"st to a+oid
conflicts ,ith state la,(
Squibs
Burlin!ton Northern 3. Co. v. ,oods 7U.S. 89>:<
="stice #arshall
Holdin0: <hate+er circ"'scri&ti+e effect the 'andatory affir'ance &enalty stat"te 'ay
ha+e on the state co"rtDs e:ercise of discretion, the state r"le &ro+ides no a"thority for
definin0 the sco&e of discretion allo,ed "nder >ederal R"le 38(
>acts: <oods had o.tained a 3"ry +erdict a0ainst C"rlin0ton( After the +erdict, *( of A(
affir'ed +erdict and assessed a %U &enalty as &rescri.ed .y Ala.a'a la, for all
"ns"ccessf"l a&&eals of 'oney 3"d0'ents( C"rlin0ton o.3ected, ar0"in0 that >R*5 38
controlled the case, and "nder 38, &enalties ,ere a&&ro&riate only if the a&&eal ,as
fri+olo"s(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: >R*5 38 affords a co"rt of a&&eals &lenary discretion to
assess /3"st da'a0es1 in order to &enaliEe an a&&ellant ,ho takes a fri+olo"s a&&eal(
$h"s, the R"leDs discretionary 'ode of o&eration "n'istaka.ly conflicts ,ith the
'andatory &ro+ision of Ala.a'a la,(
Stewart @r$ani9ation: n*. v. +i*o! "or.. (U.S. 1988)
Justice Marshall
+oldin!: A&&lyin0 the Hanna analysis to this case &ers"ades "s that federal la,,
s&ecifically 28 B(6(*( Q4%4?aA, 0o+erns the &artiesD +en"e dis&"tes( <e transfer this
case to a co"rt in #anhattan( $he case is re'anded so that the G(*o"rt 'ay deter'ine in
the first instance the a&&ro&riate effect "nder federal la, of the &artiesD for"'-selection
cla"se on res&ondentDs Q4%4?aA 'otion( -t is so ordered(
1acts: 6te,art s"ed Ricoh on contract iss"es in B(6( G(*o"rt of Ala.a'a( Relyin0 on
the contract"al for"'-selection cla"se, Ricoh 'o+ed the Gistrict *o"rt either to transfer
the case fro' Ala.a'a to @e, Nork or to dis'iss it for lack of &ro&er +en"e "nder
Q4%6( G(*o"rt denied the 'otion, reasonin0 that the transfer 'otion ,as controlled .y
Ala.a'a la,, ,hich looks "nfa+ora.ly on for"' selection cla"ses(
Procedural +istor: 5laintiff a&&ealed to
th
*ir, ,hich re+ersed the G(*o"rt(
Gefendant a&&ealed to 6"&re'e *o"rt(
o $he first and chief 8"estion for the G(*o"rtDs deter'ination is ,hether the stat"te
is /s"fficiently .road to control the iss"e .efore the *o"rt(
o -t &roceeds to in8"ire ,hether the stat"te re&resents a +alid e:ercise of *on0ressD
a"thority "nder the *onst(
o A 'otion to transfer "nder Q4%4?aA calls on the G(*o"rt to ,ei0h a n"'.er of
case-s&ecific factors(
o $he fle:i.le and indi+id"aliEed analysis *on0ress &rescri.ed in Q4%4?aA th"s
enco'&asses consideration of the &artiesD &ri+ate e:&ression of their +en"e
&references(
o *on0ress has directed that '"lti&le considerations 0o+ern transfer ,ithin the
federal co"rt syste'( A state &olicy foc"sin0 on a sin0le concern or a s".set of
the factors identified in Q4%4?aA ,o"ld defeat that co''and( -ts a&&lication
,o"ld i'&o+erish the fle:i.le and '"ltifaceted analysis that *on0ress intended(
o 6ection 4%4?aA is do".tless ca&a.le of classification as a &roced"ral r"le, and
indeed, ,e ha+e so classified it in holdin0 that a transfer &"rs"ant to Q4%4?aA
does not carry ,ith in a chan0e in the a&&lica.le la,( -t therefore falls
co'forta.ly ,ithin *on0ressD &o,ers "nder Article --- as a"0'ented .y the
@ecessary and 5ro&er *la"se(
Notes
Goes this case de'onstrate the difference .et,een RGADs 0rant to states ?constr"ed as
o"tco'e deter'inantA and R9ADs test of s".stanti+e ri0hts4
>or"' transfer has +al"e to a liti0ant: for"' selection cla"ses are ne0otiated for and ha+e
econo'ic +al"e( $h"s they are s".stanti+e(
RGA: 9rie interests are for"' sho&&in0 and liti0ant e8"ality( Nork test is o"tco'e
deter'inati+e( Cyrd is federal interest(
R9A: $est of >R*5 is Hanna(
'as.erini v. "enter for Hu)anities: n*. (U.S. 199/)
="stice Jins."r0
Holdin0: @e, NorkDs la, controllin0 co'&ensation a,ards for e:cessi+eness or
inade8"acy can .e 0i+en effect, ,itho"t detri'ent to the 6e+enth A'end'ent, if the
re+ie, standard set o"t in *57R Q55%?cA ?@e, Nork la,A is a&&lied .y the federal trial
co"rt 3"d0e, ,ith a&&ellate control of the trial co"rtDs r"lin0 li'ited to re+ie, for /a."se
of discretion(1 Accordin0ly, ,e +acate the 3"d0'ent of the *( of A( and instr"ct that
co"rt to re'and the case to the G(*o"rt so that the trial 3"d0e, re+isitin0 his r"lin0 on the
ne, trial 'otion, 'ay test the 3"ryDs +erdict a0ainst *57R Q55%?cADs /de+iates
'aterially1 standard(
>acts: Jas&erini loaned &hoto trans&arency slides to *enter( *enter lost the slides(
Jas&erini .ro"0ht an action in 6G@N and ,on a 3"ry a,ard for P5%% &er slide
?P45%,%%% totalA( G(*o"rt denied defendantDs 'otion to strike the +erdict ,itho"t
co''ent( *o"rt of A&&eals then +acated 3"d0'ent, a&&lyin0 the state standard of
/de+iatin0 'aterially fro' ,hat ,o"ld .e reasona.le co'&ensation1 rather than the
federal standard of /shocks the conscience(1
5recedents:
o Citing Hanna +( 5l"'er ?B(6(A: $he t,in ai's of 9rie r"le: disco"ra0e'ent of
for"' sho&&in0 and a+oidance of ine8"ita.le ad'inistration of the la,s(
o 5arallel a&&lication of Q55%?cA at the federal a&&ellate le+el ,o"ld .e o"t of sync
,ith the federal syste'Ds di+ision of trial and a&&ellate co"rt f"nctions, an
allocation ,ei0hted .y the 6e+enth A'end'ent( $he dis&ositi+e 8"estion,
therefore, is ,hether federal co"rts can 0i+e effect to the s".stanti+e thr"st of
Q55%?cA ,itho"t "nto,ard alteration of the federal sche'e for the trial and
decision of ci+il cases(
o -t th"s a&&ears that if federal co"rts i0nore the chan0e in the @e, Nork standard
and &ersist in a&&lyin0 the /shock the conscience1 test to da'a0e a,ards on
clai's 0o+erned .y @e, Nork la,, s".stantial +ariations .et,een state and
federal 'oney 3"d0'ents 'ay .e e:&ected( <e therefore a0ree ,ith the 6econd
*irc"it that @e, NorkDs check on e:cessi+e da'a0es i'&licates the t,in ai's of
9rie(
o Ho,e+er, the 6econd *irc"it did not attend to an essential characteristic of the
federal co"rt syste' ,hen it "sed Q55%?cA as the standard for federal a&&ellate
re+ie,(
o $he )
th
A'endDs Ree:a'ination *la"se does not inhi.it the a"thority of trial
3"d0es to 0rant ne, trials for any of the reasons for ,hich ne, trials ha+e
heretofore .een 0ranted in actions at la, in the co"rts of the B(6(
o A&&ellate re+ie, for a."se of discretion is reconcila.le ,ith the 6e+enth
A'end'ent as a control necessary and &ro&er to the fair ad'inistration of 3"stice(
o @e, NorkDs do'inant interest can .e res&ected, ,itho"t disr"&tin0 the federal
syste', once it is reco0niEed that the federal district co"rt is ca&a.le of a&&lyin0
the 6tateDs /de+iates 'aterially1 standard in line ,ith @e, Nork case la,(
o Gistrict co"rt a&&lications of the /de+iates 'aterially1 standard ,o"ld .e s".3ect
to a&&ellate re+ie, "nder the standard the *irc"its no, e'&loy ,hen inade8"acy
or e:cessi+eness is asserted on a&&eal: a."se of discretion(
Gissentin0 !&inion ?="stice 6te+ensA:
o $here is no reason to s"&&ose that the *o"rt of A&&eals has reached a concl"sion
,ith ,hich the Gistrict *o"rt co"ld &er'issi.ly disa0ree on re'and(
o !"r decision in Cyrd does not 'ake the Ree:a'ination *la"se rele+ant( $here,
,e considered only ,hether the )
th
A'endDs first cla"se sho"ld infl"ence o"r
decision to 0i+e effect to a state-la, r"le denyin0 the ri0ht to a 3"ry alto0ether(
$hat holdin0 in no ,ay re8"ires "s to cons"lt the A'end'entDs second cla"se to
deter'ine the standard of re+ie, for a district co"rtDs a&&lication of state
s".stanti+e la,(
Gissentin0 !&inion ?="stice 6caliaA:
o At co''on la, of )9, re+ie, of 3"d0'ents ,as had only on ,rit of error,
li'ited to 8"estions of la,( As a&&eals fro' denial of Ka 'otion for a ne, trial on
0ro"nds that da'a0es are e:cessi+eD necessarily &ose a fact"al 8"estion, co"rts of
the Bnited 6tates are constit"tionally for.idden to entertain the'(
o <hether or not it is &ossi.le to characteriEe an a&&eal of a denial of ne, trial as
raisin0 a /le0al 8"estion,1 it is not &ossi.le to re+ie, s"ch a clai' ,itho"t
en0a0in0 in a /ree:a'ination1 of the facts tried .y the 3"ry in a 'anner other,ise
than allo,ed .y co''on la,(
o Re+ie,in0 the siEe of 3"ry +erdicts is a 'atter of federal la,( 6tate s".stanti+e
la, controls ,hat in3"ries are co'&ensa.le and in ,hat a'o"ntL ."t federal
standards deter'ine ,hether the a,ard e:ceeds ,hat is la,f"l to s"ch de0ree that
it 'ay .e set aside .y order for ne, trial or re'ittit"r(
o $he analo0y to a stat"tory ca& on da'a0es fails "tterly( $here is an a.sol"tely
f"nda'ental distinction .et,een a r"le of la, s"ch as that, ,hich ,o"ld
ordinarily .e i'&osed "&on the 3"ry in the trial co"rtDs instr"ctions, and a r"le of
re+ie,, ,hich si'&ly deter'ines ho, closely the 3"ry +erdict ,ill .e scr"tiniEed
for co'&liance ,ith the instr"ctions(
o Cy 'akin0 the analo0y to a stat"tory ca&, the *o"rt co''its the classic 9rie
'istake of re0ardin0 ,hate+er chan0es the o"tco'e as s".stanti+e(
o -t see's to 'e far 'ore likely that a difference in a&&ellate standards ?,hich the
'a3ority &reser+esA in re+ie,in0 orders for ne, trials ,o"ld &rod"ce for"'
sho&&in0(
o >R*5 59 &ro+ides that a ne, trial 'ay .e 0ranted for any of the reasons for
,hich ne, trials ha+e heretofore .een 0ranted in actions at la, in the co"rts of
the Bnited 6tates( $hat is "ndenia.ly a federal standard(
o Bndenia.le that >R*5 59 is s"fficiently .road to ca"se a direct collision ,ith
state la,( $h"s the co"rt has no choice ."t to a&&ly the >ederal R"le(
Notes
-n this o&inion, Jins."r0 doesnDt e+en consider the Hanna i'&lications 2 i(e( the &ossi.le
collision of a state la, and a federal la,(
-s there really a discerna.le line .et,een re+ie,in0 the reasonin0 of a 3"d0'ent and
re+ie,in0 the a&&lication of the facts4
Section B. The Pro)lem of Ascertainin! State 'a%
ntro,u*tory Notes
$he states ha+e .een allo,ed 0reat lee,ay in esta.lishin0 choice-of-la, r"les( A state
co"ld a&&ly its s".stanti+e la, in a case, so lon0 as the state had si0nificant contacts or a
si0nificant a00re0ation of contracts of the &arties and the transaction(
Squibs
/la#on Co. v. Stentor "lectric Mf!. Co. 7U.S. 89@8<
Holdin0: >ederal co"rts '"st a&&ly the conflicts-of-la,s r"les of the states in ,hich they
sit(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: -t is not for the federal co"rts to th,art s"ch local &olicies
.y enforcin0 an inde&endent /0eneral la,1 of conflict of la,s(
Han &usen v. Barrack 7U.S. 89C@<
Holdin0: $he /critical identity1 is .et,een the federal co"rt that decides the case and the
co"rts of the state in ,hich the action ,as filed(
>acts: Gefendants so"0ht to transfer the action fro' federal co"rt in 5ennsyl+ania to
federal co"rt in #ass(, ,here the state la, ,as 'ore fa+ora.le to their case(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: A chan0e of +en"e "nder Q4%4?aA 0enerally sho"ld .e, ,ith
res&ect to state la,, ."t a chan0e of co"rtroo's(
1ason v. ()eri*an ;)ery #!eel #orks (1
st
"ir. 19&7)
Ma!ruder- Chief Jud!e
+oldin!: -t is fair to infer fro' its dict"' in G" 5ont that the 6"&( *o"rt of #iss( is
&re&ared to reconsider and re+ise the r"le of &rod"cts lia.ility( A 3"d0'ent ,ill .e
entered +acatin0 the order of the Gistrict *o"rt, dis'issin0 the co'&laint and re'andin0
the case to the G(*o"rt for f"rther &roceedin0s not inconsistent ,ith this o&inion(
1acts: #ason filed co'&laint in Rhode -sland G(*o"rt a0ainst 9'ery for &ersonal
in3"ries res"ltin0 fro' ne0li0ent 'isfeasance( Gefendant ar0"ed that it o,ed no d"ty to
&laintiff .eca"se of lack of &ri+ity of contract, and 'o+ed to dis'iss( G(*o"rt 0ranted
'otion .eca"se it ,as .o"nd to a&&ly #iss( la,, ,hich had a harsh standard concernin0
&ri+ity of contract re8"ire'ents(
Procedural +istor: 5laintiffs a&&ealed G(*o"rtDs dis'issal of their clai'(
Precedents:
o AnalyEin0 9(-( G" 5ont Ge @e'o"rs F *o( +( 7adner ?#iss(A: -n this recent
decision, #iss( 6"&(*t( dis&osed of the iss"e ,itho"t e:&ressly o+err"lin0 the
&re+io"s case that esta.lished the harsh &ri+ity re8"ire'ent( Ho,e+er, the co"rt
'ade a lon0 and caref"l o&inion, 8"otin0 ,ith a&&ro+al 'any a"thorities in
s"&&ort of the 'ore 'odern doctrine(
o -f the #iss( 6"&(*t( had recently reconsidered the r"le of harsh &ri+ity
re8"ire'ents it had ado&ted in >ord +( #yers and had decided to adhere to it on
the 0ro"nd of stare decisis, no do".t the federal co"rts ,o"ld ha+e had to acce&t
the local la, as so declared( C"t it ,o"ld .e 0rat"ito"s and "n,arranted to
ass"'e that the 6"&(*t( of #ississi&&i ,o"ld no, so hold(
o -t is not necessary that a case .e e:&licitly o+err"led in order to lose its &ers"asi+e
force as an indication of ,hat the la, is(
o -t is rele+ant to consider ,hat the #iss( 6"&(*t( has s".se8"ently said in dicta on
this &oint(
Concurrin! 6$inion 7+arti!an- Circuit Jud!e<:
o - realiEe that ,e &resent a diffic"lt &ro.le' for district 3"d0es ,hen they '"st
a&&ly the 9ire doctrine to sit"ations ,herein the considerations as .et,een
conflictin0 holdin0s and dicta are not as clearly defined as they are here( $he
8"estion of ho, clear dicta '"st .e to &re+ail o+er a &rior controllin0 decision
does not lend itself to easy sol"tion(
Squibs
Mc/enna v. 6rtho Pharmaceutical Cor$. 7B
rd
Cir. 89>?<
Holdin0: Cased on a fair scr"tiny of the rele+ant !hio &recedents ,ith an eye to,ard the
&rinci&les and &olicies "nderlyin0 the',1 the !hio 6"&re'e *o"rt ,o"ld decide that the
a&&lica.le stat"tes of li'itation in this case ,ere tolled "ntil the &laintiff kne,, or .y the
e:ercise of reasona.le dili0ence sho"ld ha+e disco+ered, the ca"se of her in3"ries(
>acts: 5laintiffs s"ed for ne0li0ence, 'isre&resentation, and &rod"ct lia.ility( Action ,as
co''enced in a 5ennsyl+ania state co"rt and re'o+ed to B(6( G(*o"rt in 5itts."r0h( All
of the si0nificant e+ents occ"rred in !hio( Altho"0h 5enn( <o"ld nor'ally a&&ly stat"te
of li'itations of the for"' state, it had a /.orro,in0 stat"te1 that said /,hen a ca"se of
action has .een f"lly .arred .y the la, of the state in ,hich it arose, s"ch .ar shall .e a
co'&lete defense to an action thereon in any of the co"rts of this *o''on,ealth(1 $he
G(*o"rt reasoned that !hioDs la, said stat"te .e0an to r"n ,hen the &laintiff de+elo&ed
sy'&to's and that the ca"se of action ,as .arred .eca"se it ,as filed 'ore than t,o
years after that ti'e( -t dis'issed(
5roced"ral History: A&&eal to *( of A(
o 9ssential 8"estion &osed "nder the /.orro,in0 stat"te1 is ,hether the action in
8"estion is &recl"ded .y the la,s of the state in ,hich it accr"ed, and the ans,er
to that 8"estion also '"st .e .ased on the la, of the state in ,hich the clai'
arose(
o !"r dis&osition of s"ch cases '"st .e 0o+erned .y a &rediction of ho, the stateDs
hi0hest co"rt ,o"ld decide ,ere it confronted ,ith this &ro.le'(
Pomerant0 v. Clark 7&.Mass. 89E8<
Holdin0: $he #ass( 6"&( ="dicial *o"rt a.ides to the ancient faith in the ri0ht of 'en to
choose their o,n associates, 'ake their o,n arran0e'ents, 0o+ern the'sel+es and th"s
0ro, in res&onsi.ility ,itho"t '"ch in the ,ay of either hindrance or hel& fro' the state(
$his .asic &hiloso&hy &er'eates the #ass( R"les 0o+ernin0 deri+ati+e s"its( $herefore
no action is 'aintaina.le "nder #ass( 7a,(
>acts: Gi+ersity action .y &olicyholders a0ainst directors of an ins"rance co'&any to
retrie+e for the co'&any certain s"'s alle0edly i'&ro+idently and ille0ally loaned(
o $his *o"rt is not free to render s"ch decisions as see's to it e8"ita.le, 3"st and in
accordance ,ith &".lic &olicy and res&onsi+e to all those 3"ris&r"dential criteria
,hich so often enter ,hat ="stice *ardoEo called /$he @at"re of the ="dicial
5rocess(1
o -n the #ass( 6"&( ="d( *t(, e'&hasis is on &recedent and adherence to the older
,ays, not on creatin0 ne, ca"ses of action or enco"ra0in0 the "se of no+el
3"dicial re'edies that ha+e s&r"n0 "& in less conser+ati+e co''"nities(
1actors "tc.- .nc. v. Pro Arts- .nc. 7;
nd
Cir. 89>8<
Holdin0: $he Gistrict *o"rt ,as .o"nd .y the 6i:th *irc"itDs +ie, of $enn( 7a,( 6i:th
*irc"it ,as 'ore fa'iliar ,ith $ennessee la, since it fre8"ently ,as re8"ired to inter&ret
$enn( la,(
>acts: >ederal co"rt sittin0 in @e, Nork ,as re8"ired to a&&ly $enn( la, to the 8"estion
of ,hether 9l+is 5resleyDs ri0ht to &".licity s"r+i+ed his death( $enn( state co"rts had
ne+er addressed that iss"e, ."t the 6i:th *irc"it ?,hich incl"des $enn(A had(
Gissentin0 !&inion: $here ,as no reason to follo, the 6
th
*ir +ie,s ,hen they ,ere not
deri+ed fro' the la,s or decisions of the state( *onsiderin0 the &hysical siEe of the
circ"it, and the relati+ely s'all n"'.er of di+ersity cases, 6
th
*ir( ,as "nlikely to ha+e
any s&ecial fa'iliarity ,ith $enn( la,(
Notes
>or a lon0 ti'e, federal co"rt follo,ed any state co"rt decision ?incl"din0 lo,er co"rtsA(
7ater co"rts e'&hasiEed doin0 'ind e:&eri'ent to ask ho, hi0hest state co"rt ,o"ld
r"le( 6o'e say later r"le conflicts ,ith 9rie( C"t the 8"estion of ,hether state la, is
e+ol+in0 infl"ences this 2 a ,ooden federal co"rt ,o"ld enco"ra0e for"' sho&&in0(
>ederal co"rts can try to a+oid the defects associated ,ith &rediction and the static
a&&roach .y e'&loyin0 a &res"'&tion in fa+or of certifyin0 "nsettled 8"estions of state
la, to the hi0hest co"rt of the state ,hene+er state la, a"thoriEes this &roced"re(
6o'e e+idence s"00ests that federal co"rts ha+e sho,n a &reference for citin0 federal
decisions on state la, instead of state decisions at rates a&&roachin0 &re-9rie le+els(
*o"rts are "sin0 36)?cA?A, re'ittin0 cases .eca"se of no+el state iss"es 2 e+en if those
are not s"&&le'ental clai's ."t di+ersity ?332A clai's(
Section C. 1ederal ICommon 'a%J
1elt9er: State "ourt =orfeitures of =e,eral +i$!ts
-n a +ariety of s".3ect 'atter 3"risdictions, there 'ay .e federal co''on la,: B6 as
&arty, stron0 federal interest, interstate dis&"tes, etc(
7a,'akin0 &o,er of federal co"rts is far 'ore li'ited than *on0ress for 2 reasons: (
ideas of se&aration of &o,er and s"&re'acy of *on0ress( 2( >ederal la, is and sho"ld .e
/interstitial1, o&eratin0 a0ainst a .ack0ro"nd of e:istin0 .odies of state la,(
*o"rt has reco0niEed that federal co''on la, 'ay .e necessary e:&edient(
>ed( *o''on la, fits 'ost easily ,hen it s"&&le'ents federal constit"tional or stat"tory
&ro+isions, &ro+idin0 r"les of decision that i'&le'ent or safe0"ard nor's e'.odied in
s"ch &ro+isions(
>ed( *o''on 7a, also fir'ly esta.lished in ad'iralty conte:t and cases i'&licatin0
international relations of the Bnited 6tates(
"learfiel, >rust "o. 5. Unite, States (U.S. 19%B)
Justice &ou!las
+oldin!: $he a"thority to iss"e the check had its ori0ins in the *onstit"tion and the
stat"tes of the Bnited 6tates( -n the a.sence of an a&&lica.le Act of *on0ress it is for
federal co"rts to fashion the 0o+ernin0 r"le of la, accordin0 to their o,n standards(
$h"s, if it is sho,n that the dra,ee on learnin0 of the for0ery did not 0i+e &ro'&t notice
of it and that da'a0e res"lted, reco+ery .y the dra,ee is .arred( Ho,e+er, no da'a0e
res"lted, so B(6( 'ay reco+er(
1acts: A check iss"ed .y the B(6( ,as stolen and cashed at =(*( 5enney( 5enney t"rned
it o+er to *learfield, ,hich endorsed it ,ith a 0"aranty of all &rior endorse'ents,
collected the a'o"nt fro' the >ed and &aid it to 5enney( @either 5enney nor *learfield
had s"s&ected for0ery( B(6( s"ed *learfield on its e:&ress 0"aranty( G(*o"rt held that
B(6( ,as s".3ect to 5enn( state la,, r"led for *learfield(
Procedural +istor: B(6( a&&ealed( *( of A( re+ersed(
Precedents:
o Gistin0"ishin0 Bnited 6tates +( @ational 9:chan0e Cank ?B(6(A: B(6( co"ld
reco+er as dra,ee fro' one ,ho &resented for &ay'ent a &ension check on ,hich
the na'e of the &ayee had .een for0ed, in s&ite of a &rotracted delay on the &art of
the B(6( in 0i+in0 notice of the for0ery( Ho,e+er, &ro'&t notice of the disco+ery
of the for0ery ,as not a condition &recedent to s"it( -t did not reach the 8"estion
of ,hether lack of &ro'&t notice 'i0ht .e a defense( <e think it 'ay( $he
Bnited 6tates does ."siness on ."siness ter's(
o $he r"le of 9rie doesnDt a&&ly( $he ri0hts and d"ties of the B(6( on co''ercial
&a&er ,hich it iss"es are 0o+erned .y federal rather than local la,(
o $he a&&lication of state la,, e+en ,itho"t the conflict of la,s r"les of the for"',
,o"ld s".3ect the ri0hts and d"ties of the Bnited 6tates to e:ce&tional "ncertainty(
o *ases &lace the ."rden on the dra,ee of 0i+in0 &ro'&t notice of the for0ery 2
in3"ry to the defendant .ein0 &res"'ed .y the 'ere fact of delay(
Notes
$he ca"se of action ,o"ld .e for .reach of contract( Net, the B(6( *o"rts can r"le on it
.eca"se it arises "nder4 !r 3"st .eca"se the B(6( is a &arty4
Squibs
United States v. /im)ell 1oods- .nc. 7U.S. 89:9<
Holdin0: After ,ei0hin0 facts of federal interests ,ith res&ect to &riority r"les for the
6CA and >HA loans, the *o"rt held that there ,as no need for an inde&endent federal
r"le( $h"s, the co"rt chose to ado&t the state r"le as federal la, rather than to de+elo& a
se&arate federal r"le(
>acts: ;"estion arose ,hether federal or state r"les sho"ld .e "sed for 6CA and >HA
loans in order to deter'ine ,hether the fed( Jo+Dt or a &ri+ate creditor ,o"ld .e a.le to
collect first on a loan(
o *o"rt inter&reted *learfield .roadly as &er'ittin0 federal co"rts to de+elo&
federal la, for /8"estions in+ol+in0 the ri0hts of the B(6( arisin0 "nder
nation,ide federal &ro0ra's(1
o *ontro+ersies directly affectin0 the o&erations of federal &ro0ra's, altho"0h
0o+erned .y federal la,, do no ine+ita.ly re8"ire resort to "nifor' federal r"les(
<hether to ado&t state la, or to fashion a nation,ide federal r"le is a 'atter of
3"dicial &olicy /de&endent "&on a +ariety of considerations al,ays rele+ant to the
nat"re of the s&ecific 0o+ern'ental interests and to the effects "&on the' of
a&&lyin0 state la,(
o #"st deter'ine ,hether state la, ,o"ld fr"strate s&ecific o.3ecti+es of federal
&ro0ra's( *hoice-of-la, in8"iry '"st consider the e:tent to ,hich a&&lication of
a federal r"le ,o"ld disr"&t co''ercial relationshi&s &redicated on state la,(
Bank of America National Trust = Savin!s Association v. Parnell 7U.S. 89EC<
Holdin0: $he only federal interest is in the state la,s re0"latin0 sec"rities iss"ed .y the
0o+ern'ent and traded a'on0 &ri+ate &arties( A federal interest here is far too re'ote to
3"stify the a&&lication of federal la,( $h"s, ,e re+erse the *( of A(
>acts: Cank of A'erica alle0ed 5arnell had con+erted )3 Ho'e !,nersD 7oan *or&(
.onds ,hich .elon0ed to Cank of A'erica( Conds ,ere 0"aranteed .y the B(6(
5rinci&al iss"e at trial ,as ,hether the defendants took the .onds in 0ood faith( G(*o"rt
char0ed the 3"ry .ased on state la,( *( of A( a&&lied *learfield and re+ersed, sayin0
federal la, a&&lied(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: >ederal la, does 0o+ern the inter&retation of the nat"re of
the ri0hts and o.li0ations created .y the B(6( .onds the'sel+es( A decision ,ith res&ect
to the /o+erd"eness1 of the .onds is therefore a 'atter of federal la,, ."t this case does
not to"ch on s"ch ri0hts and o.li0ations(
Gissentin0 !&inions: <e .elie+e that federal 'erchant la, of *learfield a&&lies to all
transactions of B(6( co''ercial &a&er( Net the nat"re of the ri0hts and o.li0ations
created .y co''ercial &a&er of the B(6( is said to .e controlled .y federal la,(
Chapter 8: &odern Pleadin
Section A. The Com$laint
ntro,u*tory Notes
>R*5 8?aA re8"ires only a short and &lain state'ent of the clai' sho,in0 that the
&laintiff is entitled to relief(
Cy esta.lishin0 other &ro+isions desi0ned e:&ressly to screen .aseless clai's ?'ost
nota.ly, the 'otion to dis'iss "nder R"le 2 and s"''ary 3"d0'ent "nder R"le 56A(
-n recent years, there ha+e .een le0islati+e &ro&osals and enact'ents &"r&ortin0 to
/refor'1 tort la,, e:tendin0 sanctions "nder R"le (
3io$uar,i v. 3urnin$ (2
n,
"ir. 19%%)
Clark- Circuit Jud!e
+oldin!: $he &laintiffDs &leadin0 can .e inter&reted to &ose a clai' re8"irin0 relief and
th"s 'eets the re8"ire'ents "nder the >R*5( !n re'and, the &laintiff 'ay find
s".stance in other clai's asserted .y the &laintiff( ="d0'ent is re+ersed and the action is
re'anded for f"rther &roceedin0s not inconsistent ,ith this o&inion(
1acts: 5laintiff alle0ed a series of 0rie+ances in his co'&laint ha+in0 to do ,ith the sale
his "nclai'ed 0oods at a federal a"ction( $he co'&laint ,as dis'issed ,ith lea+e for the
&laintiff to re'and( 5laintiff tried a0ain and a0ain the G(*o"rt dis'issed(
Procedural +istor: A&&eal fro' dis'issal .y trial co"rt(
o Bnder >R*5, there is no &leadin0 re8"ire'ent of statin0 /facts s"fficient to
constit"te a ca"se of action,1 ."t only that there .e /a short and &lain state'ent of
the clai' sho,in0 that the &leader is entitled to relief1 in r"le 8?aA and the 'otion
for dis'issal "nder r"le 2?.A is for fail"re to state /a clai' "&on ,hich relief
'ay .e 0ranted(1
o Gefendant didnDt need to 'o+e on the co'&laint aloneL he co"ld ha+e disclosed
the facts fro' his &oint of +ie,, in ad+ance of a trial if he chose, .y askin0 for a
&re-trial hearin0 or .y 'o+in0 for a s"''ary 3"d0'ent ,ith s"&&ortin0
affida+its( As it stands, ,e do not see ho, the &laintiff 'ay &ro&erly .e de&ri+ed
of his day in co"rt to sho, ,hat he o.+io"sly so fir'ly .elie+es and ,hat for
&resent &"r&oses defendant '"st .e taken as ad'ittin0(
Squibs
Conle v. Gi)son 7U.S. 89E:<
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: $he >R*5 do not re8"ire a clai'ant to set o"t in detail the
facts "&on ,hich he .ases his clai'( 6"ch si'&lified /notice &leadin01 is 'ade &ossi.le
.y the li.eral o&&ort"nity for disco+ery and the other &retrial &roced"res esta.lished .y
the R"les to disclose 'ore &recisely the .asis of .oth clai' and defense and to define
'ore narro,ly the dis&"ted facts and iss"es(
Mc+enr v. 3enne 79
th
Cir. 899C<
o 5roli:, conf"sin0 co'&laints s"ch as the ones filed in this case i'&ose "nfair
."rdens on liti0ants and 3"d0es( As a &ractical 'atter, the 3"d0e and o&&osin0
co"nsel, in order to &erfor' their res&onsi.ilities, cannot "se s"ch a co'&laint(
o $he for's of action still sha&e &leadin0s, tho"0h the r"les no lon0er re8"ire
&leadin0s to confor' to the ancient for's( 5leadin0s of the kind sha&ed .y the
traditional for's ena.le deter'ination of the a&&ro&riate &roced"res for the
&artic"lar ty&e of ad3"dication, the ty&e of trial, and the re'edies a+aila.le(
'od!e :@B v. United Aircraft Cor$. 7&. Conn. 89C;<
Holdin0: $he defendantDs 'otion for a 'ore definite state'ent is 0ranted, ."t, since the
&laintiff has a s".stantial reason to .elie+e alle0ations of co'&laint is tr"e e+en tho"0h it
cannot s"&&ly 'ore infor'ation, the &laintiff shall not .e re8"ired to ans,er any &art of
said 'otion "ntil its o,n disco+ery &roceedin0s are co'&leted(
>acts: 5laintiff .ro"0ht s"it alle0in0 +iolation of a strike settle'ent 2 defendant failed to
recall strikers to ,ork as 3o.s .eca'e a+aila.le( 5laintiff did not ha+e list of &artic"lar
&eo&le ,ho ,ere har'ed .eca"se it lacked infor'ation that only the co'&any had(
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: $he o+er,hel'in0 ,ei0ht of a"thority says that a 'otion
for a 'ore definite state'ent of the clai' sho"ld not .e 0ranted if the co'&laint sets forth
a ca"se of action ,ith s"fficient definiteness to ena.le the defendant to fra'e an ans,er(
'ar*ia v. Hilton Hotels nternational: n*. (3.P+. 19&1)
Jud!e 3o)erts
+oldin!: $he co''ents ,hen the &laintiff ,as fired ,ere &rotected .y conditional
&ri+ile0e and co''ents at the e'&loy'ent hearin0 ,ere &rotected .y a.sol"te &ri+ile0e(
$he e'&loy'ent hearin0 co''ents do not constit"te an actiona.le clai'( Ho,e+er, the
other co''ents, since they ,ere only conditional &ri+ile0ed, are actiona.le( *onditional
&ri+ile0e is not a concl"si+e defense to action .ased slander, the defendantDs 'otion to
dis'iss for fail"re to state a clai' sho"ld .e denied( Ceca"se of the conditional
&ri+ile0e, tho"0h, defendant is entitled for a 'ore definite state'ent(
1acts: 5laintiff ,as e'&loyee of defendant( Gefendant fired &laintiff and alle0edly
'ade slandero"s co''ents that he ,as a &i'&( 5laintiff alle0ed that defendant 'ade
co''ents .oth ,hile he ,as fired and d"rin0 an e'&loy'ent hearin0( Gefendant 'o+ed
for dis'issal on 0ro"nds of fail"re to state a clai'(
Procedural +istor: $rial co"rt(
Precedents:
o Citing *ode of *i+( 5ro( of 5"erto Rico &(3%9 Q4: A &".lication or
co''"nication shall not .e held or dee'ed 'alicio"s ,hen 'ade in any
le0islati+e or 3"dicial &roceedin0(
o R"le 2?.A re8"ires that e+ery defense in la, or fact .e asserted in a res&onsi+e
&leadin0( $he r"le, ho,e+er, en"'erates certain defenses ,hich 'ay .e asserted
.y 'otion to dis'iss, all of ,hich 0o to 3"risdiction e:ce&t fail"re to state a clai'(
o *o''"nications 'ade d"rin0 the e'&loy'ent hearin0s sho"ld .e a.sol"tely
&ri+ile0ed in the sa'e 'anner as those in a 3"dicial &roceedin0(
Squibs
"llis v. Black &iamond Coal Minin! Co. 7Ala. 89EC<
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: 9+en tho"0h a co'&laint at la, sho,s on its face that the
ca"se of action is .arred .y the stat"te of li'itations the defense of the stat"te cannot .e
taken .y de'"rrer ?dis'issalA(
Ba!!et v. Chavous 7Ga.A$$. 89CB<
-'&ortant 7e0al Reasonin0: !rdinarily, the &laintiff, in his &etition, need not antici&ate
or ne0ati+e a &ossi.le defense( <here, ho,e+er, s"ch defense is antici&ated, it '"st .e
effecti+ely a+oided, or the co'&laint is .ad(
7ur,en of Plea,in$ an, 7ur,en of Pro,u*tion
5laintiff has the ."rden of &rod"ction on t,o ty&es of iss"es( >irst, &laintiff '"st &"t
forth e+idence on certain 'atters .asic to the clai' for relief( 6econd, if, ."t only if, the
defendant esta.lishes a defense, &laintiff ,ill then ha+e a second ."rden of &rod"ction,
this ti'e to introd"ce e+idence as to facts that ,ill a+oid defendantDs defense(
5laintiff nor'aly does not ha+e to &lead 'atters on ,hich defendant '"st introd"ce
&roof(
@t!er "onsi,erations in (llo*atin$ t!e 7ur,en of Plea,in$
-t is only ,hen a defense 0oes to the +ery heart of the action that the ."rden of &leadin0
and the ."rden of &rod"cin0 need not coincide(
-n so'e 3"risdiction, falsity is tho"0ht to .e so '"ch a &art of the .asic action of slander
that &laintiff '"st &lead it, e+en tho"0h the defendant has the ."rden of introd"cin0
e+idence of tr"th(
$he 0eneral tho"0ht is that the ."rden of &leadin0 sho"ld .e on the &arty that has 'ore
access to infor'ation(
$here are three 0"idelines that Hershkoff re3ects:
o @ot &ro+in0 ne0ati+e
o C"rden of infor'ation
o C"rden of &ro.a.ility
Section B. 3es$ondin! to the Com$laint
ntro,u*tory Notes
R"le 2?aA 0i+es 'ost defendants t,enty days fro' the ser+ice of the co'&laint to
res&ond either .y a 'otion &"rs"ant to R"le 2 or .y ans,erin0 the co'&laint( Gefense
co"nsel ro"tinely re8"ests, and &laintiffDs co"nsel ro"tinely consents to, an e:tension of
the defendantDs ti'e to ans,er( $hese a0ree'ents are 0enerally considered a 'atter of
co"rtesy a'on0 co"nsel(
$he ori0ins of the 'otion to dis'iss can .e traced to the co''on-la, de'"rrer(
$he de'"rrer ,as incor&orated into code &leadin0( -n 'ost code states, a co'&laint
co"ld .e dis'issed on the &leadin0s for fail"re to state facts s"fficient to constit"te a
ca"se of action, a.sence of s".3ect-'atter 3"risdiction, and deficiencies in the for' of the
&leadin0(
>e, &leadin0s are likely to fail "nder R"le 2?.A?6A( $his does not 'ean, ho,e+er, that
the 'otion is "seless( 5"re 8"estions of la, can .e tested .y "sin0 the 'otion( $he
a+aila.ility "nder the >ederal R"les of s"''ary 3"d0'ent, directed +erdict, etc(, also
di'inishes the i'&ortance of "sin0 R"le 2?.A?6A to screen fri+olo"s cases(
()eri*an NursesC (sso*iation v. llinois (7
t!
"ir. 198/)
Posner- Circuit Jud!e
+oldin!: A co'&laint does not fail to state a clai' 'erely .eca"se it does not set forth a
co'&lete and con+incin0 &ict"re of the alle0ed ,ron0doin0( 6o the &laintiffs do not ha+e
to alle0e steerin0 e+en if it is in so'e sense i'&licit in their clai'( 5laintiffs are entitled
to 'ake additional efforts to &ro+e a case of intentional discri'ination ,ithin the
.o"ndaries sketched in this o&inion( Re+ersed and re'anded(
1acts: A n"rsesD "nion .ro"0ht s"it a0ainst the 6tate of -llinois for se: discri'ination in
+iolation of 42 B(6(*( Q2%%%e and the 4
th
A'end'ent( $heir co'&laint alle0ed so'e
co"nts that see'ed like /co'&arati+e ,orth1 2 the theory that traditionally fe'ale 3o.s
&aid less than traditionally 'ale 3o.s re8"irin0 the sa'e skills and ,orkload(
*o'&arati+e ,orth had .een re3ected as 0ro"nds for action "nder federal ci+il ri0hts la,(
!ther co"nts see'ed to alle0e other se: discri'ination +iolations, s"ch as /steerin0,1
,hich are actiona.le "nder ci+il ri0hts la,(
Procedural +istor: *o'&laint dis'issed .y G(*o"rt( 5laintiffs a&&ealed(
Precedents:
o Distinguishing *onley +( Ji.son: -n the syste' created .y the >R*5 a co'&laint
/sho"ld not .e dis'issed for fail"re to state a clai' "nless it a&&ears .eyond
do".t that the &laintiff can &ro+e no set of facts in s"&&ort of his clai' ,hich
,o"ld entitle hi' to relief(1 $his lan0"a0e sho"ld not .e taken literally( -f the
&laintiff, tho"0h not re8"ired to do so, &leads facts, and the facts sho, that he is
entitled to no relief, the co'&laint sho"ld .e dis'issed(
o $he 8"estion here is ,hether a fail"re to achie+e co'&ara.le ,orth 2 0ranted that
it ,o"ld not itself .e a +iolation of la, 2 'i0ht &er'it an inference of deli.erate
and therefore "nla,f"l discri'ination, as distinct fro' &assi+e acce&tance of a
'arket-deter'ined dis&arity in ,a0es(
o Kno,led0e of a dis&arity is not the sa'e thin0 as an intent to ca"se or 'aintain itL
if for e:a'&le the stateDs intention ,as to &ay 'arket ,a0es, its kno,led0e that
the conse8"ence ,o"ld .e that 'en 0ot hi0her ,a0es on a+era0e and that the
difference 'i0ht e:ceed any &re'i"' attri."ta.le to a difference in relati+e ,orth
,o"ld not 'ake it 0"ilty of intentionally discri'inatin0 a0ainst ,o'en(
o A &laintiff ,ho files a lon0 and detailed co'&laint 'ay &lead hi'self o"t of co"rt
.y incl"din0 fact"al alle0ations ,hich if tr"e sho, that his le0al ri0hts ,ere not
in+aded(
o A co'&laint cannot .e dis'issed 'erely .eca"se it incl"des so'e in+alid clai's
alon0 ,ith so'e +alid ones( @othin0 is 'ore co''on(
o $he only thin0 that ,o"ld 'ake fail"re to achie+e co'&ara.le ,orth a for' of
intentional and therefore actiona.le se: discri'ination ,o"ld .e if the 'oti+ation
for not i'&le'entin0 the st"dy ?indicatin0 co'&ara.le ,orthA ,as the se: of the
e'&loyees 2 if for e:a'&le the officials tho"0ht that 'en o"0ht to .e &aid 'ore
than ,o'en e+en if there is no difference in skill or effort or conditions of ,ork(
o $he co"rt is not to &o"nce on a cra..ed and literal readin0 of the co'&laint to
dis'iss(
Section &. Amendments
7ee*k v. (quasli,e DNC 3ive "or.. (8
t!
"ir. 1977)
Benson- &istrict Jud!e 7sittin! ) desi!nation<
+oldin!: $he trial co"rt did not a."se its discretion in allo,in0 the defendant to a'end
its ad'ission that it 'an"fact"red the slide in 8"estion( $he &ossi.le &re3"dice to the
&laintiff of allo,in0 this fact"al iss"e to .e tried ?i(e(, &re+entin0 the' fro' filin0 a s"it
a0ainst the tr"e 'an"fact"rer .eca"se of the stat"te of li'itationsA ,as an ins"fficient
.asis on ,hich to deny the &ro&osed a'end'ent(
1acts: 5laintiff s"ed defendant on &rod"cts lia.ility for a slide alle0edly 'an"fact"red
.y defendant( $he defendant ad'itted to 'an"fact"rin0 the slide .eca"se it had no
e+idence to the contrary and then, after,ards, ins&ected the slide and fo"nd that it ,as
not the 'an"fact"rer( -t 'o+ed to a'end its ad'ission( 5laintiff o.3ected on the 0ro"nds
that if defendant ,as not the 'an"fact"rer, it ,o"ld not ha+e ti'e to file a ne, co'&laint
a0ainst the tr"e 'an"fact"rer .efore the stat"te of li'itations e:&ired(
Procedural +istor: 5laintiff a&&ealed G(*o"rtDs decision to allo, a'end'ent(
Precedents:
o Citing >o'an +( Ga+is ?B(6( 962A: -n the a.sence of any a&&arent or declared
reason 2 s"ch as "nd"e delay, .ad faith or dilatory 'oti+e on the &art of the
'o+ant, re&eated fail"re to c"re deficiencies .y a'end'ents &re+io"sly allo,ed,
"nd"e &re3"dice to the o&&osin0 &arty, f"tility, etc( 2 the lea+e so"0ht sho"ld, as
the r"les re8"ire, .e /freely 0i+en(1 Allo,ance or denial of lea+e to a'end is
re+ie,a.le only for an a."se of discretion(
o Citing Hanson +( H"nt !il *o( ?8
th
*ir( 968A: 5re3"dice '"st .e sho,n( $he
."rden is on the &arty o&&osin0 the a'end'ent to sho, s"ch &re3"dice(
Notes
/Gelay, standin0 alone, is an ins"fficient .asis for denyin0 lea+e to a'end, and this is
tr"e no 'atter ho, lon0 the delay(1 Goes this state'ent 0o too far4
5art of the iss"e in Ceeck ,as that the &laintiff co"ld s"e a ne, defendant for fra"d,
,hich has a lon0er stat"te of li'itations(
Chapter 11. 4iscovery
Section A. &iscover
ntro,u*tory Notes
Governed ) 13CP ;C
#odern disco+ery has three 'a3or &"r&oses(
o >irst: &reser+ation of rele+ant infor'ation that 'i0ht not .e a+aila.le at trial(
o 6econd: $o ascertain and isolate those iss"es that act"ally are in contro+ersy
.et,een the &arties(
o $hird: >ind o"t ,hat testi'ony and other e+idence is a+aila.le on each of the
dis&"ted facts(
$he ar0"'ent ra0es not only as to ,hich ,itnesses 'ay .e 8"estioned .efore trial, ."t
,hat 8"estions 'ay .e asked 2 i(e( can yo" ask 8"estions that ,o"ld not .e ad'issi.le on
the stand4
$he ty&ical disco+ery syste' contains a n"'.er of &ro+isions callin0 for 3"dicial
intercession to a+oid a."se, ."t resort to these itself in+ol+es so'e cost(
$ools of Gisco+ery:
o Ge&ositions
o -nterro0atories
o 5rod"ction of doc"'ents
o 5hysical or 'ental e:a'ination of &arty
o Re8"ests for ad'ission
o #andatory disclos"re
Gisco+ery can .e "sed to ratchet "& the cost of a case( -t can eli'inate cases that sho"ld
not 0o to trial(
$he sco&e of disco+ery "sed to .e any 'atter rele+ant /to the s".3ect 'atter1 ."t is no,
/to the clai' or defense of any &arty(1 $he ne, ,ordin0 is desi0ned to c"t off /fishin0
e:&editions(1 5erha&s co"rts ,ill .e rel"ctant to allo, disco+ery "nless clai' is in the
&leadin0(
No" canDt "se disco+ery to 0et infor'ation fro' yo"r client(
@ote that the >R*5 is really a de&art"re fro' co''on la,(
@o,, district co"rts are .e0innin0 to sanction &arties for +iolatin0 disco+ery r"les(
5retrial disclos"re r"les in 26?aA?3A are i'&ortant( Re8"ires &arties to &ro+ide na'es of
each ,itness, se&arately identifyin0 those ,ho' the &arty e:&ects to &resent and those
,ho' the &arty 'ay call if the need arises(
Chapter 13: Ad%udication 2ithout .rial
Section A. Summar Jud!ment
(,i*kes v. S.H. 8ress - "o. (U.S. 1976)
+oldin!: Ceca"se /on s"''ary 3"d0'ent the inferences to .e dra,n fro' the
"nderlyin0 facts ontained in the 'o+in0 &artyDs 'aterials '"st .e +ie,ed in the li0ht
'ost fa+ora.le to the &arty o&&osin0 the 'otion,1 ,e think res&ondentDs fail"re to sho,
there ,as no &olice'an in the store re8"ires re+ersal(
1acts: Adickes, a ,hite teacher, entered KressDs resta"rant ,ith si: of her .lack st"dents(
$he ,aitress took the childrenDs orders ."t ref"sed ser+ice to Adickes( $he &olice then
arrested Adickes for +a0rancy( Adickes s"ed "nder federal ci+il ri0hts stat"te and
clai'ed that Kress and the &olice had cons&ired a0ainst her( Her co'&laint alle0ed that a
&olice officer had .een in the resta"rant, ."t she only had circ"'stantial e+idence( Kress
'o+ed for s"''ary 3"d0'ent( Gistrict *o"rt r"led that Adickes had failed to alle0e any
fact fro' ,hich a cons&iracy 'i0ht .e inferred(
o Kress failed to f"lfill his initial ."rden of de'onstratin0 that there ,as no
&olice'an in the store(
o <here the e+identiary 'atter in s"&&ort of the 'otion does not esta.lish the
a.sence of a 0en"ine iss"e, s"''ary 3"d0'ent '"st .e denied e+en if no
o&&osin0 e+identiary 'atter is &resented(
"elote< "or.. v. "atrett (U.S. 198/)
="stice Rehn8"ist
Holdin0: $he &lain lan0"a0e of R"le 56?cA 'andates the entry of s"''ary .3"d0'ent,
after ade8"ate ti'e for disco+ery and "&on 'otion, a0ainst a &arty ,ho fails to 'ake a
sho,in0 s"fficient to esta.lish the e:istence of an ele'ent essential to that &artyDs case,
and on ,hich that &arty ,ill .ear the ."rden of &roof at trial( $he 3"d0'ent of the *( of
A( is re+ersed and case is re'anded(
>acts: As.estos case ,here *atrett s"ed *elote:( *elote: 'o+ed for s"''ary
3"d0'ent, ar0"in0 that .eca"se *atrett failed to &rod"ce e+idence that any *elote:
&rod"ct ,as the &ro:i'ate ca"se of the in3"ries( *atrett then &rod"ced three doc"'ents
,hich she clai'ed de'onstrate that there is a 0en"ine 'aterial fact"al dis&"te( *elote:
ar0"ed that three doc"'ents ,ere inad'issi.le hearsay( Gistrict co"rt 0ranted the 'otion
al'ost t,o years after the .e0innin0 of the trial(
5roced"ral History: *( of A( re+ersed on 0ro"nds that *atrett ,as res&onsi.le for the
."rden of res&ondin0 only after *elote: 'et its ."rden of co'in0 forth ,ith &roof that
there ,as no iss"e(
5recedents:
o *riticiEin0 Adickes +( 6(H( Kress F *o( ?B(6( 9)%A: $he 963 A'end'ent to
the >R*5 sho, that it ,as not intended to 'odify the ."rden of the 'o+in0 &arty(
-t also a&&ears to "s that, on the .asis of the sho,in0 .efore the co"rt in Adickes
that the case ,as decided ,ron0ly(
o @o re8"ire'ent in R"le 56 that the 'o+in0 &arty s"&&ort its 'otion ,ith
affida+its ne0atin0 the o&&onentDs clai'(
o R"le 56?eA re8"ires the non'o+in0 &arty to 0o .eyond the &leadin0s and .y her
o,n affida+its, or other 'ethods, desi0nate s&ecific facts sho,in0 that there is a
0en"ine iss"e for trial(
o <ith the ad+ent of /notice &leadin01 the 'otion to dis'iss seldo' f"lfills the
f"nction of filterin0 ins"fficient clai's( R"le 56 '"st .e constr"ed ,ith d"e
re0ard for the ri0hts of &ersons o&&osin0 "nfo"nded clai's(
*onc"rrin0 !&inion ?="stice <hiteA:
o -t is not eno"0h to 'o+e for s"''ary 3"d0'ent ,itho"t s"&&ortin0 the 'otion in
any ,ay or ,ith a concl"sory assertion that the &laintiff has no e+idence to &ro+e
his case(
Gissentin0 !&inion ?="stice CrennanA:
o *o"rt has not clearly e:&lained ,hat is re8"ired of a 'o+in0 &arty seekin0
s"''ary 3"d0'ent on the 0ro"nd that the non-'o+in0 &arty cannot &ro+e its
case(
o $he ."rden of esta.lishin0 the none:istence of a /0en"ine iss"e1 is on the &arty
'o+in0 for s"''ary 3"d0'ent( $his ."rden has t,o distinct co'&onents:
-nitial ."rden of &rod"ction, ,hich shifts to the non'o+in0 &arty if
satisfied .y the 'o+in0 &arty(
Blti'ate ."rden of &ers"asion, ,hich al,ays re'ains on the 'o+in0
&arty(
o -f the ."rden of &ers"asion at trial ,o"ld .e on the non-'o+in0 &arty, the &arty
'o+in0 for s"''ary 3"d0'ent 'ay satisfy R"le 56Ds ."rden of &rod"ction in
either of t,o ,ays(
#o+in0 &arty 'ay s".'it affir'ati+e e+idence that ne0ates an essential
ele'ent of the non'o+in0 &artyDs clai'(
#o+in0 &arty 'ay de'onstrate to the *o"rt that the non'o+in0 &artyDs
e+idence is ins"fficient to esta.lish an essential ele'ent of the non'o+in0
&artyDs clai'(
o -f the non'o+in0 &arty cannot '"ster s"fficient e+idence to 'ake o"t its clai', a
trial ,o"ld .e "seless(
o 5lainly, a concl"sory assertion that the non'o+in0 &arty has no e+idence is
ins"fficient(
Notes
As a 0eneral r"le a &arty cannot create an iss"e of fact .y s".'ittin0 an affida+it of a
,itness in direct conflict ,ith that ,itnessD &rior s,orn testi'ony(
6".stanti+e la, ,ill deter'ine ,hat co"nts as /'ateriality1 for the &"r&oses of s"''ary
3"d0'ent(
6tandard for R"le 56 is the sa'e as that for R"le 5%?aA(
-f the &laintiff has eno"0h e+idence to satisfy each of the ele'ents of the s".stanti+e la,,
then the 8"estion of credi.ility sho"ld al,ays 0o to 3"ry(
#ats"shita +( Oenith ?B(6( 986A: $he a.sence of any &la"si.le 'oti+e to en0a0e in the
cond"ct char0ed is hi0hly rele+ant to ,hether a 0en"ine iss"e for trial1 e:ists ,ithin the
'eanin0 of R"le 56?eA( 7ack of 'oti+e .ears on the ran0e of &er'issi.le concl"sions
that 'i0ht .e dra,n fro' a'.i0"o"s e+idence(
7i.eraliEin0 s"''ary 3"d0'ent 'ay inhi.it the filin0 of other,ise 'eritorio"s s"its and
res"lt in a ,ealth transfer fro' &laintiffs as a class to defendants as a class(
6"''ary 3"d0'ent 'ay lead to fe,er settle'ents &rior to liti0ation, act"ally increasin0
the ."rden on the 3"dicial &rocess(
-n a s".stantial n"'.er of 3"risdictions the trial co"rt 'ay enter 3"d0'ent ,ith re0ard to
any sin0le clai' that has not .een f"lly ad3"dicated(
Section C. Takin! the Case from the Jur
'eneral Notes on 3ire*te, 5er,i*t
$he only difference a'on0 'otions "nder R"le 5%?aA, R"le 5%?.A, and R"le 56 is the ti'e
,hen they are 'ade(
Gen'an +( 6&ain ?#iss( 96A: C"rden ,as on &laintiff to &ro+e clai' .y &re&onderance
of e+idence( $his does not 'ean that the 3"ry can choose fro' a'on0 e8"ally &la"si.le
s&ec"lations or con3ect"res( -f there is no so"nd or reasona.le .asis "&on ,hich a 3"ry
co"ld reach a decision, then the co"rt is ri0ht in directin0 a +erdict(
Ro0ers +( #isso"ri 5acific ?B(6( 95)A: ="dicial a&&raisal of the &roofs to deter'ine
,hether a 3"ry 8"estion is &resented is narro,ly li'ited to the sin0le in8"iry ,hether,
,ith reason, the concl"sion 'ay .e dra,n that ne0li0ence of the e'&loyer &layed any
&art at all in the in3"ry or death(
Chapter 17A: 7es Judicata
ntro,u*tory Notes
>o"r *o''on-6ense &rinci&les of doctrine of for'er ad3"dication:
o A &arty ordinarily 0ets only one chance to liti0ate a /clai'1L if a &arty liti0ates
only a &ortion of a clai' the first ti'e aro"nd, she risks losin0 the chance to
liti0ate the rest(
o A &arty ordinarily 0ets only one chance to liti0ate a fact"al or a le0al iss"eL once
liti0ated, she cannot ask a second co"rt to decide it differently later(
o A &arty is entitled to at lest one /f"ll and fair1 chance to liti0ate .efore .ein0
&recl"ded(
o 5recl"sion 'ay .e ,ai+ed "nless it is clai'ed at an early sta0e in the liti0ation(
<e donDt re8"ire &laintiff to 0o into /.est1 co"rt, i(e( the one ,here yo" can try all yo"r
clai's(
$his is a co''on la, doctrine 2 one of the fe, in ci+il &roced"re(
Reco0nition is the effect of a &rior 3"d0'ent on ne, actions(
$his field also deals ,ith enforce'ent( *ollateral action is &ossi.le(
-ss"e &recl"sion .ars the reliti0ation of iss"es act"ally ad3"dicated, and essential to the
3"d0'ent in a &rior liti0ation .et,een the sa'e &arties(
A sin0le ca"se of action cannot .e s&lit .y ad+ancin0 one &art in a first s"it and reser+in0
so'e other &art for a later s"it(
$here is a 0ro,in0 tendency to s".stit"te the ,ord /clai'1 for the ca"se of action &hrase(
-t is a f"nda'ental &ro&osition that different re8"ire'ents are a&&ro&riate to different
&recl"si+e effects(
A 3"d0'ent, if rendered "&on the 'erits, constit"tes an a.sol"te .ar to a s".se8"ent
action(
>or clai' &recl"sion to o&erate, three ele'ents '"st .e &resent:
o !nly 3"d0'ents that are /final,1 /+alid,1 and /on the 'erits1 ha+e &recl"si+e
effect(
o $he &arties in the s".se8"ent action '"st .e identical to those in the first(
o $he clai' in the second s"it '"st in+ol+e 'atters &ro&erly considered incl"ded in
the first action(
*lai'-.ased &recl"sion is a transactional doctrine, si'ilar to that ,hich is "sed in
8"estions of s"&&le'ental 3"risdiction(
6o'e states still "se older res 3"dicata r"les ?not transactionalA 2 this ca"ses 9rie
&ro.le's ,hen the r"les conflict ,ith federal s"&&le'ental 3"risdiction r"les(
+us! v. "ity of 1a.le Hei$!ts (@!io 19&8)
Her.ert, ="d0e
Holdin0: $he 'a3ority r"le of considerin0 &ro&erty da'a0es and &ersonal da'a0es &art
of the sa'e action confor's '"ch 'ore &ro&erly to 'odern &ractice( <e o+err"le o"r
older r"le( ="d0'ent re+ersed and final 3"d0'ent for defendant(
>acts: 5laintiff ,as in3"red in fall fro' 'otorcycle( 6he s"ed city on 0ro"nds of
ne0li0ence( $,o s"its: first one in #"nici&al *o"rt for da'a0e to &ersonal &ro&ertyL
second one in *o"rt of *o''on 5leas for &ersonal in3"ries( Her 'otion to set trial on
the iss"e of da'a0es in the second trial ,as 0ranted(
5roced"ral History: *ity a&&ealed(
5recedents:
o *iritiEin0 Vas" +( Kohlers ?!hioA: -n3"ries to .oth &erson and &ro&erty s"ffered
.y the sa'e &erson as a res"lt of the sa'e ,ron0f"l act are infrin0e'ents of
different ri0hts and 0i+e rise to distinct ca"ses of action, ,ith the res"lt that the
reco+ery or denial of reco+ery of co'&ensation for da'a0es to the &ro&erty is no
.ar to an action s".se8"ently &rosec"ted for the &ersonal in3"ry(
o *itin0 #o.ile F !hio Rd( *o( +( #atthe,s ?$enn( 9%6A: A sin0le tort can .e the
.asis of ."t one action( All the da'a0es s"stained '"st .e s"ed for in one s"it(
o -n those instances ,here the co"rts ha+e held to the 'a3ority r"le, a se&aration of
ca"ses of action is al'ost "ni+ersally reco0niEed ,here an ins"rer has ac8"ired .y
an assi0n'ent or .y s".ro0ation the ri0ht to reco+er for 'oney it has ad+anced to
&ay for &ro&erty da'a0e(
Gissentin0 !&inions ?Oi''er'anA:
o 9sta.lished la, sho"ld re'ain "ndist"r.ed in order to ins"re a sta.ility on ,hich
the lo,er co"rts and the le0al &rofession 0enerally 'ay rely ,ith so'e de0ree of
confidence(
Notes
$he .indin0 force of stare decisis is not a.sol"te, and the &arties to a later action are free
to ar0"e that the la, anno"nced in an earlier case sho"ld .e chan0ed( C"t a co"rt ,ill not
li0htly de&art fro' &recedent e+en tho"0h the &arties ,ho are .efore it ,ere not
re&resented in the case that esta.lished the &recedent( Ho, does stare decisis differ fro'
clai' &recl"sion4
<hen a &rior 3"d0'ent ,as o.tained .y the s"e of fra"d, co"rts 0enerally ,ill not
consider it .indin0( 6i'ilarly, ,hen there ,as a clear and f"nda'ental 3"risdictional
defect that sho"ld ha+e &re+ented the first co"rt fro' hearin0 the s"it, co"rts often ,ill
hold that the 3"d0'ent has no &recl"si+e effect(
Eones v. 1orris Plan 7ank of Ports)out! (5( 19B7)
="stice Jre0ory
Holdin0: $he note and conditional sales contract constit"ted one sin0le contract( $he
sole &"r&ose of the conditional sales contract ,as to retain the title in the seller "ntil the
note ,as &aid( <hen that condition ,as &erfor'ed, the contract ended( At the ti'e the
defendant lost its ri0ht to instit"te any action for the re'ainin0 install'ents, the title to
the a"to'o.ile &assed to the &laintiff( He ,as the o,ner at the ti'e the &laintiff
con+erted it( Re+ersed and re'anded(
>acts: #orris had &re+io"sly s"ed =ones to reco+er &ay'ents for t,o 'onths "nder a
conditional sales contract( #orris chose not to e:ercise its o&tion to ad+ance the contract
at the ti'e and re8"ire =ones to &ay the ,hole thin0 or ret"rn the car( #orris ,on the
case( -t then instit"ted another action a0ainst =ones for fail"re to &ay d"rin0 a later
'onth( <hile the action ,as in co"rt, #orris took &ossession of the car(
o -f a transaction is re&resented .y one sin0le and indi+isi.le contract and the
.reach 0i+es rise to one sin0le ca"se of action, it cannot .e s&lit into distinct &arts
and se&arate actions 'aintained for each( !n the other hand, if the contract is
di+isi.le 0i+in0 rise to 'ore than one ca"se of action, each 'ay .e &roceeded
"&on se&arately(
Notes
-n this case, the .ank co"ld ar0"e that the nat"re of the contract 'ade it o&tion for
in+okin0 the acceleration cla"se(
No" donDt ,ant a r"le that re8"ires the &laintiff to a'end the co'&laint e+ery ste& of the
,ay( Res 3"dicata doctrine sees the transaction as of the day the action ,as filed(
-t is &artic"larly diffic"lt to define the sco&e of a &rior 3"d0'ent in contro+ersies
in+ol+in0 contin"in0 or rene,ed cond"ct( Restate'ent ?6econdA of ="d0'ents s"00ests
e+al"atin0 /,hether the facts are related in ti'e, s&ace, ori0in, or 'oti+ation, ,hether
they for' a &artiesD e:&ectations or ."siness "nderstandin0 or "sa0e(
-f the cond"ct that is the s".3ect of the first action contin"es after 3"d0'ent in the first
action, clai' &recl"sion ,o"ld not &re+ent a second s"it( -ss"e &recl"sion 'ay a&&ly,
ho,e+er, to 'atters of stat"s or to iss"es of fact resol+ed in the first action(
-t is tr"e that a &arty, ,hen s"ed, '"st "se all the defenses he has: as to these defenses,
,hether &leaded or not, the 3"d0'ent is concl"si+e( Ho,e+er, if he has an affir'ati+e
ri0ht of action ?i(e(, a co"nterclai'A, he is not co'&elled to file it in the first trial ."t 'ay
.rin0 s"it after,ards(
Gefense &recl"sion ?descri.ed in the first &art of the &oint a.o+eA ty&ically is raised in a
s".se8"ent action .y the ori0inal &laintiff ,hen the defendant tries to assert a defense
that ,as not raised in the earlier action(
-t co"ld .e ar0"ed that defense &recl"sion sho"ld not a&&ly, as often defendants ,ill ha+e
+ery 0ood reasons for not raisin0 a &artic"lar defense in the first action ?for e:a'&le, it
'ay ha+e .een diffic"lt to o.tain the necessary e+idence or ,itnessesA( !n the other
hand, &er'ittin0 a ne, defense to .e raised 'ay destroy the &laintiffDs sense of re&ose(
Chapter 175: Collateral 6stoppel
Section C. .ssue Preclusion
ntro,u*tory Notes
6o"thern 5acific +( Bnited 6tates ?B(6( 89)A: A ri0ht, 8"estion, or fact distinctly &"t in
iss"e and directly deter'ined .y a co"rt of co'&etent 3"risdiction, as a 0ro"nd, of
reco+ery, cannot .e dis&"ted in a s".se8"ent s"it .et,een the sa'e &arties or their
&ri+ies(
Jeneral r"le is de'anded .y the +ery o.3ect for ,hich ci+il co"rts ha+e .een esta.lished,
,hich is to sec"re the &eace and re&ose of society .y the settle'ent of 'atters ca&a.le of
3"dicial deter'ination(
$o tri00er the doctrines of iss"e &recl"sion, 'ore than 'ere d"&lication of iss"es is
re8"ired( -t is necessary to e:a'ine the nat"re of the first action and the treat'ent that
the iss"e recei+ed in it( $he 3"d0'ent in the first action '"st ha+e .een +alid, final, and
on the 'erits(
6o'e co"rts de'and that the iss"e ha+e occ"&ied a hi0h &osition in the hierarchy of le0al
r"les a&&lied in the first action 2 that it ,as i'&ortant in the holdin0( !thers re8"ire
/'"t"ality1 2 that is, that the &arty in+okin0 &recl"sion ,o"ld ha+e .een .o"nd .y an
"nfa+ora.le 3"d0'ent in the first s"it(
$hat an iss"e co"ld ha+e .een raised ."t ,asnDt ne+er &ro+ides a 3"stification for iss"e
&recl"sion ?think of contrast ,ith res 3"dicataA( >"rther, iss"e &recl"sion can a&&ly in a
later, ,holly "nrelated la,s"it(
"ro)well v. "ounty of Sa* (U.S. 187/)
Justice 1ield
+oldin!: $here ,as nothin0 ad3"d0ed in the for'er action in the findin0 that the
&laintiff had not 'ade s"ch &roof in the that case ,hich can &recl"de the &resent &laintiff
fro' 'akin0 s"ch &roof here( $he fact that a &arty 'ay not ha+e sho,n that he 0a+e
+al"e for one .ond or co"&on is not e+en &res"'&ti+e, '"ch less concl"si+e, e+idence
that he 'ay not ha+e 0i+en +al"e for another and different .ond or co"&on( $he
e:cl"sion of the e+idence offered .y the &laintiff ,as erroneo"s( Re+ersed and
re'anded(
1acts: Action on fo"r .onds( $o defeat this action, the defendant relied "&on the
esto&&el of a 3"d0'ent rendered in fa+or of the co"nty .ro"0ht .y another &laintiff(
Precedents:
o *itin0 !"tra' +( #ore,ood ?9n0(A: $he esto&&el &recl"des &arties and &ri+ies
fro' contendin0 to the contrary of that &oint or 'atter of fact, ,hich, ha+in0 .een
once distinctly &"t in iss"e .y the', or .y those to ,ho' they are &ri+y in estate
or la,, has .een, on s"ch iss"e 3oined, sole'nly fo"nd a0ainst the'(
o $here is a difference .et,een the effect of a 3"d0'ent as a .ar or esto&&el a0ainst
the &rosec"tion of a second action "&on the sa'e clai' or de'and, and its effect
as an esto&&el in another action .et,een the sa'e &arties "&on a different clai'
or ca"se of action(
o <here the second action .et,een the sa'e &arties is "&on a different clai' or
de'and, the 3"d0'ent in the &rior action o&erates as an esto&&el only as to those
'atters in iss"e or &oints contro+erted, "&on the deter'ination of ,hich the
findin0 or +erdict ,as rendered(
o Vario"s considerations, other than the act"al 'erits, 'ay 0o+ern a &arty in
.rin0in0 for,ard 0ro"nds of reco+ery or defense in one action M s"ch as the
diffic"lty of o.tainin0 e+idence or the e:&ense of liti0ation( A &arty actin0 "&on
considerations like these o"0ht not to .e &recl"ded fro' contestin0 in a
s".se8"ent action other de'ands arisin0 o"t of the sa'e transaction(
Notes
A 0ood case can .e 'ade for sayin0 that if a 'atter is distinctly &"t in iss"e and for'ally
ad'itted, the &arty 'akin0 the ad'ission sho"ld .e .o"nd .y it in s".se8"ent liti0ation(
Goes the /act"ally liti0ated1 re8"ire'ent say that cases that are dis'issed cannot .e
so"rces of iss"e &recl"sion4 Nes: for a *(9(, the iss"e '"st .e .oth act"ally liti0ated and
act"ally decided(
-f '"lti&le iss"es ,ere &resented to the 3"ry in a ,ay that constit"ted '"lti&le &ossi.le
,ays of o.tainin0 a certain +erdict ?i'a0ine a ne0li0ence case: defendant co"ld ,in .y
contri."tory ne0li0ence or .y &ro+in0 lack of o,n ne0li0enceA, does one iss"e only ha+e
the ,ei0ht of dict"'4 <hich one4
-n 'ost circ"'stances, a &arty .o"nd .y *(9( doesnDt ha+e o&&ort"nity to a&&eal(
<here there is no s&ecial +erdict, yo" ha+e to deter'ine ,hether the iss"e ,as act"ally
liti0ated and essential to 3"d0'ent( $his is called the &ro.le' of /alternati+e holdin0s(1
Section ". Persons Benefited and Bound ) Preclusion
'eneral Notes
-n order to render a 'atter res 3"dicata, there '"st .e identity of &arties or their &ri+ies(
<olff +( @e, Oealand -ns( ?Kent( 933A: -n a later action, a &arty 'ay ,ant to .e in
&ri+ity ,ith &arties in a &re+io"s action in order to .e treated the sa'e re0ardin0
da'a0es( $his is &art of ,here /mutualit1 co'es fro', .eca"se in the case of <olff,
the &arty only ,anted to .e in &ri+ity .eca"se of the &artic"lar ,ay the case ca'e o"t( -n
that case, the ins"rance co'&anies in the ori0inal s"it ,ere each res&onsi.le for a
relati+ely s'all share of da'a0es( $he t,o co'&anies that ,anted &ri+ity ,o"ld .e
o"tliers and likely ,o"ld ha+e to &ay 'ore( Ho,e+er, if the 3"d0'ent a0ainst the
ori0inal &arties had .een lar0er, the t,o co'&anies ,o"ldnDt ha+e ,anted to .e in &ri+ity(
A theory is that a &arty is in &ri+ity ,ith other &arties if it has a shared interest( Ho,e+er,
3"st ha+in0 a shared interest is ty&ically not s"fficient to find &ri+ity ?as in <olffA(
<hen an action is .ro"0ht a0ainst one ,ho is entitled to .e inde'nified .y another if he
sho"ld lose ?e(0( the o,ner of an ins"rance &olicyA, a3"d0'ent a0ainst the inde'nitee ,ill
.ind the inde'nitor on the iss"e of the inde'niteeDs lia.ility in the first action, if the
inde'nitor has .een /+o"ched in1 2 notified of the first action and offered an o&&ort"nity
to defend( $his is the /indemnit circle1 e:ce&tion to '"t"ality(
6ho"ld a co"rt that lacks a"thority o+er a clai' ?say, an anti-tr"st clai'A ha+e res 3"dicata
effect on that clai' if itDs related to other clai's4
Hershkoff: No" sho"ld .e a.le to 3oin clai's in one co"rt if the ad3"dication of one
,o"ld &recl"de the other( @ote that this contrasts ,ith the /&rinci&le1 that &laintiffs donDt
ha+e to .rin0 clai's to co"rts that ha+e a"thority o+er all of their clai's(
Hershkoff: -n Cernhard, $raynor is sayin0 that a /day in co"rt1 is not an a"to'atic ri0ht
and th"s re3ects the 'ain ar0"'ent for '"t"ality(
Restate'ent ?6econdA of ="d0'ents: $he in3"red &ersonDs clai's a0ainst the &ri'ary
o.li0or and the &erson +icario"sly res&onsi.le for his cond"ct ?e(0(, his e'&loyerA are in
i'&ortant res&ects se&arate clai's(
Restate'ent ?6econdA of ="d0'ents: $he o&tional additional sec"rity th"s afforded .y
r"les of +icario"s res&onsi.ility sho"ld not afford the in3"red &erson a f"rther o&tion to
liti0ate s"ccessi+ely the iss"es "&on ,hich his clai' to redress is fo"nded ?e(0(, loses
case a0ainst e'&loyee and then tries to s"e e'&loyerA(
Clonder-$on0"e +( B( of -llinois: $here see's to .e 'ore of an e'&hasis on the nat"re of
the &otentially esto&&ed &artyDs o&&ort"nity to liti0ate(
Clonder-$on0"e +( B( of -llinois: -n any la,s"it ,here a defendant, .eca"se of the
'"t"ality &rinci&le, is forced to &resent a co'&lete defense on the 'erits to a clai'
,hich the &laintiff has f"lly liti0ated and lost in a &rior action, there is an ar0"a.le
'isallocation of reso"rces( ?this is defensi+e non-'"t"al collateral esto&&elA
A"thorities ha+e .een 'ore ,illin0 to &er'it a defendant in a second s"it to in+oke an
esto&&el a0ainst a &laintiff ,ho lost on the sa'e clai' in an earlier s"it than they ha+e
.een to allo, a &laintiff in the second s"it to "se offensi+ely a 3"d0'ent o.tained .y a
different &laintiff in a &rior s"it a0ainst the sa'e defendant(
5arklane Hosiery +( 6hore: $est of this also asks ,hether defendant ,as disad+anta0ed
.y the for"'( $his is, say, difference .et,een ad'in hearin0 and trial co"rt(
J"idelines to "se offensi+e non-'"t"al collateral esto&&el: $he &refera.le a&&roach is
not to &recl"de the "se of offense collateral esto&&el, ."t to 0rant trial co"rts .road
discretion to deter'ine ,hen it sho"ld .e a&&lied( $he 0eneral r"le sho"ld .e that in
cases ,here a &laintiff co"ld easily ha+e 3oined in the earlier action or ,here, either for
the reasons disc"ssed a.o+e or for other reasons, the a&&lication of offensi+e esto&&el
,o"ld .e "nfair to a defendant, a trial 3"d0e sho"ld not lalo, the "se of offensi+e
collateral esto&&el((

Civ Pro Outline

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Civ Pro Outline

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Civil Procedure

Helen Hershkoff, VH 334, 998-6285

Вам также может понравиться