CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Introduction/Civil procedure

Advertisements

Civil Procedure Professor Washington The Power of Procedure The Power of Procedure The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice) The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice)

Civil Litigation I Parties & Jurisdiction Not that kind of party!

Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman Jurisdiction. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E-Commerce 2 Jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to hear and decide a case –

David Achtenberg Holmes (BETA) Contact Information.

Chapter 2: Court Systems and Jurisdiction

TODAY’S CLASS Announcements Where We Are & What We’re Doing Skills: Reading Cases Washington Equip. Mfg. p. 145 Skills: Arguing From Precedent Burnham,

Internet Jurisdiction Law of e-Commerce Copyright, Peter S. Vogel,

Civil Litigation. 2  CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ◦ 7 JUSTICES  CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURTS ◦ 6 DISTRICTS  CALIFORNIA TRIAL COURTS—SUPERIOR COURTS ◦ ONE.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – LA 310. FEDERAL AND STATE COURT SYSTEMS.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.

1 Forum Non Conveniens 1 Preliminary Question: What is the difference between a motion for change of venue and a forum non conveniens motion?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.

Legal Environment of Business (Management 518) Professor Charles H. Smith The Court System (Chapter 2) Spring 2005.

THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS A Critical Thinking Approach Fourth Edition Nancy K. Kubasek Bartley A. Brennan M. Neil Browne Nancy K. Kubasek Bartley.

Chapter 2 Courts and Jurisdiction

Unit 2 Seminar Jurisdiction. General Questions Any general questions about the course so far?

Dispute Resolution Chapter 2. Judicial Review Marbury v. Madison –Establishes the idea of judicial review.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 38 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 18, 2005.

Copyright © 2011 by Jeffrey Pittman.  Note the difference between federal and state court systems in the U.S., and the key concept of judicial review.

The Paralegal Professional Chapter Six The Court System.

Une pensée d’avance Think Ahead Formation Continue Faculty of Law Private International Law: Where to Sue after the Supreme Court decision in.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 33 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 11, 2002.

Wed., Sept. 24. PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN STATE COURT.

The American Court System Chapter 3. Why Study Law And Court System? Manager Needs Understanding Managers Involved In Court Cases As Party As Witness.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 35 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 14, 2005.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.

1 Agenda for 17th Class Name plates out Personal Jurisdiction: –International Shoe –General and Specific Jurisdiction –Challenging jurisdiction –McGee;

Declining Supplemental Jurisd. Standard of Appellate Review “Standard of review” What mean?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.

Thurs. Sept. 27. PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN STATE COURT.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 26 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 20, 2001.

Chapter 2 Objectives Explain the function of the courts.

1 Agenda for 25th Class Name plates out Venue Mock mediation. Friday Nov 2, 11-12:30 Court visit either Monday October 29 or Nov 5. 9:30-12:30 –LLV conflict.

The Judicial System The Courts and Jurisdiction. Courts Trial Courts: Decides controversies by determining facts and applying appropriate rules Appellate.

Tues., Oct. 29. consolidation separate trials counterclaims.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 28 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 29, 2001.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.

Law for Business, 15e by Ashcroft Chapter 2: Courts and Court Procedures Law for Business, 15e, by Ashcroft, © 2005 West Legal Studies in Business,

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 34`````````````````````` `````` Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 13, 2002.

CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS C & F Fall 2005 Class 7 Personal Jurisdiction September

1 Agenda for 34th Class Slide handout Next week –Monday. No class –Wednesday. Regular class 10-11:15, Rm. 103 –Friday. Rescheduled class. 1:20-2:35, Rm.

1 Agenda for 29th Class Admin –Handouts – slides –Friday April 18 class rescheduled to 1:15-2:30 in Rm.101 (still April 18) Review of Choice of Law Personal.

Is the Foreign Supplier “All In”? Service and Personal Jurisdiction in a Global Economy Mark D. Katz Coronado Katz LLC 14 W. Third Street, Suite 200 Kansas.

CHAPTER The Court System and Jurisdiction 2. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Legal Environment of Business in the Information Age © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies,

Chapter 2: Court Systems and Jurisdiction

1. A defendant’s consent allows a court not otherwise having personal jurisdictional a defendant to exercise in personam jurisdiction because.

COURT SYSTEMS AND JURISDICTION

Thurs. Oct. 18.

Conflict of Laws M1 – Class 4.

Thurs., Oct. 6.

Jurisdiction Class 3.

Agenda for 25rd Class Admin Name plates TA-led review class

Fri., Sept. 26.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law

COURT SYSTEMS AND JURISDICTION

Requirements for Where to File Suit

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

Thurs., Oct. 10.

Jurisdiction Original vs. Appellate jurisdiction

Thurs., Sept. 26.

Presentation transcript:

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue Transfer Forum non conveniens + +

Power Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction Process In personamIn rem In personamIn rem

Power Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction Process In personamIn rem In personamIn rem PresenceConsentDomicile Property (In State When Lawsuit Filed) Personal Service In State Attachment (seizure) (Publication?)

WHAT WE’RE DOING The Formalist Approach Rules apply themselves Problem Sets & RAC The syllogism Appellate Cases Exercise in rhetoric Court’s result inevitable Formalist Instrumentalist “Formalist” Policy

WHAT WE’RE DOING Arguing from precedent Argue rules Choice Meaning Argue facts Different facts Different understanding Let go of “right” answers

SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Hypothetical #1 Corporations Brandon sues JB Chocolates in NY Breach of contract JB Chocolates “Presence” Natural persons v. corporations “Consent” Express v. implied As matter of law (state statutes) As matter of fact

SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Hypothetical #3 Corporations Tort Rhiannon (Iowa) v. JB Chocolates (WA Auto accident Rhiannon & Erin (JB truck driver) Iowa accident Distinguish case from #1

SKILLS: READING CASES Rule Choice Options International Shoe How do facts fit in Pennoyer framework? WA court? Problems? Def IS argument?

SKILLS: READING CASES Rule Choice Options International Shoe Court’s Rule Choice Test Relationship to “presence”

SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Hypotheticals – p. 102, note 4 Internat’l Shoe Del. incorp. & Miss. HQ, ppb IS & Wyoming No sales, purchases, salespeople Uses roads for transporting shoes

SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Hypotheticals – p. 102, note 4 IS Truck collides w/ rancher in Who. Wyo jurisdiction over neg. claim Former EE in Wyo Wyo jurisdiction over Mo. wrongful discharge Pl. sues IS in Mo. Pl. sues IS in Del.

SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Hypothetical Internat’l Shoe Del. incorp. & Miss. HQ, ppb IS & Wyoming No sales, purchases, salespeople Uses roads for transporting shoes WA salesperson  IS unpaid comm’n’s Jurisdiction in Wyoming? Additional information?

BLACK LETTER LAW The Minimum Contacts Test [Defendant] must have mimum contacts with [the forum state] such that maintenance of suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

Power Personal Jurisdiction (State Court) Process Presence ?? Consent ?? Domicile ?? Minimum Contacts + subst. justice & fair play

International Shoe “Boxes” Contacts Systematic Isolated & continuous | Jurisdiction| ? | ______________|______________ | ? | No jurisdiction | Claim Related Unrelated

TAKEAWAYS International Shoe Conceptual Frameworks Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction Black Letter Law Minimum contacts test Skills: Reading Cases Rule Choice