Wed. Apr. 2. Hughes v Fetter (US 1951) Tennessee Coal, Iron & RR Co v George (US 1914)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Federal and State Courts
Advertisements

Fauntleroy v Lum (US 1908). Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933)
Mon. Nov. 25. claim preclusion issue preclusion.
Chapter 13 Administrative Responsibility Torts & Agencies ► What is a Tort? ► Generally, under the concept of “Sovereign Immunity” it is impossible to.
New York’s Neumeier Rules
Public Policy Exception
Broderick v Rosner NY law allows piercing the corporate veil concerning NY banks to get to shareholders NJ doesn’t like this and wants to protect NJ shareholders.
Party Autonomy rule of validation choice-of-law clauses.
Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (US 1981). member of Minn workforce – commuted to work there Allstate present and doing business in Minn Post-event move of.
Grant v McAuliffe (Cal 1953). P ships goods in Mass using D as transport P received printed bill of lading which contains limitations on liability Under.
Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933). Durfee v Duke (US 1963)
Thurs. Sept. 13. constitutional restrictions on service.
Constitutional Restrictions on Choice of Law. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (US 1981)
State Separation of Powers Wooley v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 893 So.2d 746 (La. 2005)
Substance/procedure. A NY state court wants to know whether it should use PA’s statute of limitations (damages limitations, burden of proof, evidentiary.
Government Chapter 4. Section 1 Federalism Federalism: system of government in which governmental powers are divided between the national and state governments.
Tues. Dec. 4 2:00. issue preclusion If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided - litigated fairly and fully - and essential.
Wed. Apr. 9. Durfee v Duke (US 1963) Clarke v. Clarke (US 1900)
Mon. Apr. 7. Privileges & Immunities Clause State cannot withhold from non-residents something important (something bearing on the vitality of the nation.
Mon. Mar. 31. Constitutional Restrictions on Choice of Law.
Mon. Dec. 3. claim preclusion scope of a claim Rest. (2d) of Judgments § 24. Dimensions Of “Claim” For Purposes Of Merger Or Bar—General Rule Concerning.
State Separation of Powers Wooley v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 893 So.2d 746 (La. 2005)
True conflicts. New York’s Neumeier Rules Cooney v Osgood Machinery (NY 1993) - Cooney (MO) injured in MO by machinery owned by Mueller (MO) - Machinery.
Tues., Oct. 21. practice midterm Wed. 10/ Room 119 Thurs 10/ Room 141 Thurs 10/ Room 127.
Fri., Oct. 17. amendment 15(a) Amendments Before Trial. (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 39 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 21, 2005.
Mon. Nov ) are people already adversaries? NO 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o of an action already being litigated? NO forbidden.
Tues. Nov. 27. terminating litigation before trial 2.
Thurs. Nov. 29. preclusive effect (res judicata)
Tues. Dec. 4. issue preclusion If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided - litigated fairly and fully - and essential to the.
The Judicial System The Courts and Jurisdiction. Courts Trial Courts: Decides controversies by determining facts and applying appropriate rules Appellate.
Choice-of-law clauses in contracts Choice of law that validates contracts – Could be used even when no choice-of-law provision exists – Could be used to.
McMillan v McMillan (Va. 1979). § 145. The General Principle (1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined.
Clarke v. Clarke (US 1900). “This is but to contend that what cannot be done directly can be accomplished by indirection, and that the fundamental principle.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 39 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 24, 2003.
Tues. 2/2/16. characterization substance/procedure.
TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
Tues. Apr. 19. Full Faith and Credit state for sister state – Art. IV, sect. 1 federal for state – 28 U.S. Code § 1738 state for federal – Supremacy Clause?
Thurs. Apr. 14. Preclusion Res Judicata Fauntleroy v Lum (US 1908)
Thurs. Mar. 31. Constitutional Restrictions on Choice of Law.
Thurs. Apr. 21. Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (U.S. Apr. 19, 2016)
Tues. Feb. 16. pleading and proving foreign law Fact approach to content of foreign law.
Tues. Apr. 12. Constitutional Restrictions on Choice of Law.
Mon. Apr. 10.
Mon. Apr. 17.
Tues., Sept. 23.
Wed. Apr. 5.
Wed. Apr. 12.
Wed. Feb. 15.
Conflict of Laws M1 – Class 4.
Lecture 22 Apr. 2, 2018.
Tues. Nov. 19.
Lecture 20 Mar. 26, 2018.
Lecture 24 Apr. 9, 2018.
Lecture 21 Mar. 28, 2018.
Fri., Oct. 31.
Lecture 10 Feb. 12, 2018.
Mon., Nov. 19.
Lecture 23 Apr. 4, 2018.
Lecture 21 Nov. 26, 2018.
Lecture 6 Mon. Sept. 17, 2018.
Sources of Law Legislature – makes law Executive – enforces law
Wed., Nov. 5.
Lecture 24 Dec. 5, 2018.
Lecture 22 Nov. 28, 2018.
Lecture 23 Dec. 3, 2018.
Sources of Law Legislature – makes law Executive – enforces law
Sources of law Mrs. Hill.
Mon., Oct. 28.
Presentation transcript:

Wed. Apr. 2

Hughes v Fetter (US 1951)

Tennessee Coal, Iron & RR Co v George (US 1914)

Crider v Zurich Ins Co (US 1965) Alabaman injured in Ala while working for Ga corporation Ala Ct awarded remedy under Ga workers comp statute even though Ga statute said action had to be brought before Ga Comp board The rule of Tennessee Coal “has been eroded by the line of cases beginning with Alaska Packers and Pacific Insurance.”

Privileges & Immunities Clause

State cannot withhold from non-residents something important (something bearing on the vitality of the nation as a single entity) Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination and the means chosen (namely state citizenship) bears a substantial relationship to achieving the end

CT has guest statute, New York does not NY guest and host get into accident in CT Guest sues host in CT court, which – using interest analysis – does not apply guest statute Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?

- What if NY guest sues CT host in CT state ct for accident in CT - ct resolves true conflict by applying NY law - any P&I violation? - ct resolves true conflict by applying CT guest statute - any P&I violation?

What if CT guest sues NY host for accident in CT CT court, using interest analysis, does not apply guest statute (because no worry about effect of fraud in CT) Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?

Preclusion Res Judicata

P sues D concerning property damages that arose from a car accident D wins (D not negligent) May P sue to recover property damages arising from the same accident again? Assume instead that P won P brings suit on the judgment May D collaterally attack the judgment on the merits May D collaterally attack the judgment for lack of jurisdiction? May P sue concerning personal injury arising from the same accident?

May P2 (another person harmed in the accident) sue D for negligence? If D had been determined to be not negligent in P’s suit, is P2 precluded from relitigating D’s negligence If D had been determined to be negligent in P’s suit, is D precluded from relitigating D’s negligence?

Fauntleroy v Lum (US 1908)

The main argument urged by the defendant to sustain the judgment below is addressed to the jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts. The laws of Mississippi make dealing in futures a misdemeanor, and provide that contracts of that sort, made without intent to deliver the commodity or to pay the price, "shall not be enforced by any court." The defendant contends that this language deprives the Mississippi courts of jurisdiction, and that the case is like Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. There, the New York statutes refused to provide a court into which a foreign corporation could come, except upon causes of action arising within the state, etc., and it was held that the State of New York was under no constitutional obligation to give jurisdiction to its supreme court against its will. One question is whether that decision is in point.

The case quoted concerned a statute plainly dealing with the authority and jurisdiction of the New York court. The statute now before us seems to us only to lay down a rule of decision. The Mississippi court in which this action was brought is a court of general jurisdiction, and would have to decide upon the validity of the bar if the suit upon the award or upon the original cause of action had been brought there. The words "shall not be enforced by any court" are simply another, possibly less emphatic, way of saying that an action shall not be brought to enforce such contracts.

Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933)

Stone, J., dissenting “For present purposes, we may take it that the Georgia decree, as the statutes and decisions of the state declare, is unalterable, and, as pronounced, is effective to govern the rights of the parties in Georgia. But there is nothing the decree itself or in the history of the proceedings which led to it to suggest that it was rendered with any purpose or intent to regulate or control the relationship of parent and child, or the duties which flow from it, in places outside the State of Georgia where they might later come to reside.”

“It would be going further than this Court has been willing to go in any decision to say that the power of a state to pass judgment upon the sanity of its own citizen could be foreclosed by an earlier judgment of the court of some other state dealing with the same subject matter.”

“Parties who have in one state litigated the proper construction of a will disposing of realty are not, by the judgment there, concluded in another state where the testator's realty is located. Nor will a divorce decree seeking to apportion the rights of the parties to realty be conclusive with respect to land outside the state. The interest of a state in controlling all the legal incidents of real property located within its boundaries is deemed so complete and so vital to the exercise of its sovereign powers of government within its own territory as to exclude any control over them by the statutes or judgments of other states.”

“More than once, this Court has approved the doctrine that a state need give no effect to judgments for conviction of crime or for penalties procured in a sister state.”

Georgia has mutuality requirement for issue preclusion Alabama does not P sues D in Georgia state court D is found negligent P2 sues D in Alabama state court concerning same accident May P2 issue preclude D from relitigating his negligence?

Durfee v Duke (US 1963)

Kalb v Feuerstein (US 1940) State ct took jurisd over a foreclosure proceeding – as a result farmer lost farm State judgment not given FF&C because at the time a bankruptcy action was pending, which deprived state ct of jurisd State court was unaware of bankruptcy action as dictum SCt said that even if state ct found that it had jurisd over an action despite bankruptcy, the judgment could be ignored