1. Agenda for 25rd Class Admin Name plates TA-led review class
M 11/ :50, Rm 101
Review class. M 12/11. 10AM Rm 101
Slide Handouts
Today
Discussion of court visit
Long-Arm Statutes
Review Venue, forum non conveniens
2012 exam
Introduction to res judicata and collateral estoppel

2. Assignment for Monday I
Res Judicata
US Constitution Article IV (Supplement p. 1)
28 USC 1738
Yeazell pp
(WG5) Briefly Summarize Frier
(WG6) In what court could Frier have brought both his replevin and his due process claims?
(WG7) Did the city raise res judicata as a defense in the district court? How? Why was that improper? How should the city have raised that defense?
(WG1) Why was it proper for the Court of Appeals to consider the res judicata defense, given that the district court did not address it and the city did not cross appeal?
(WG2) Yeazell p. 727 Q1
Optional: Glannon Chapters 26 & 27

3. Assignment for Monday II
Collateral Estoppel
Yeazell
BlackBoard Questions on Collateral Estoppel Q1-5
(WG3) Briefly summarize Illinois Central
(WG4) The suit in the first paragraph was actually heard in state court. If the suit in the first paragraph of the opinion had been brought in federal court, would the second suit be barred by res judicata?
(WG5) If the suit in the first paragraph of the opinion had been brought in state court, but the main suit described in the case was brought in federal court, would the second suit be barred by res judicata.
(WG6) Yeazell p. 749 Q 2
Yeazell p. 751 Qs 3 (WG7), 4 (WG1) (Note you will want to do the Blackboard Questions first, because they give you the answers to Qs 1 & 2)
(WG2) Briefly summarize Parklane
Yeazell pp. 759ff Qs 1, 2a&b (WG3), 5a&b (WG4)
Optional. Glannon Chapters 28 and 29

4. Court Visit

5. Long Arm Statutes I
West Dakota’s Long-Arm Statute says, “West Dakota Superior Courts shall have personal jurisdiction over disputes only if the defendant is a citizen of West Dakota.”
International Shoe truck on way to Washington gets into accident in West Dakota.
No personal jurisdiction in West Dakota Superior court
Even though jurisdiction would be constitutional, it is not authorized by statute
No personal jurisdiction in federal court in West Dakota
b/c FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) says jurisdiction of federal court is the same the jurisdiction of West Dakota Superior Court
East Dakota Long-Arm Statute says, “East Dakota Superior Courts shall have personal jurisdiction over any dispute in which an East Dakota citizen is a party”
East Dakota citizen vacations in Washington state, gets into accident with International Shoe delivery truck in Washington
No personal jurisdiction in East Dakota Superior Court
Jurisdiction allowed by statute, but would be unconstitutional
No personal jurisdiction in federal court in East Dakota, b/c of 4(k)(1)(A)

6. Long Arm Statutes II
South Virginia statutes says, “South Virginia superior courts shall have personal jurisdiction over any corporation doing business in South Virginia”
An International Shoe truck gets into an accident in South Virginia
Jurisdiction is proper in South Virginia superior court
b/c allowed by statute
Personal jurisdiction is constitutional
Jurisdiction is also proper in federal court in South Virginia
b/c of FRCP 4(k)(1)(A)
North Virginia statutes says, “North Virginia superior courts shall have personal jurisdiction whenever jurisdiction is not inconsistent with the US Constituion”
Jurisdiction is proper in North Virginia superior court
b/c constitutional
Jurisdiction is also proper in federal court in North Virginia

7. Review Venue, Transfer, FNC
Main point is convenience (low litigation costs)
Statutory, not constitutional
1391 is general federal venue statute
Other federal venue statutes
State venue statutes
Can transfer cases within judicial system
For convenience
Location of witnesses and evidence
If case would be more conveniently litigated in different legal system
Transfer not possible
Forum non conveniens dismissal
Change in law or procedure is not usually grounds to retain case where witnesses and evidence are elsewhere 7 7

8. 2012 Exam

9. Assignment III – Suggested Chart for Q. 2a on 2012 Exam
District/
region
Location of
Choice of Law Rule
Substantive Law
Delay
N.D.E.D
Nothing
Rest. 2nd
Place of engineering
Strict liability
18 months federal 3 years state
S.D.E.D.
Henri
D’s factory
Accident
P’s home
Rest. 2nd,
N.D.W.D
Gharibaldi
D’s HQ
D’s engineering
Traditional
Negligence
S.D.W.D
Delaware
D’s incorporation
Rest. 2nd, but unclear how applied ?

10. Assignment IV – Suggested Chart for Q. 2a on 2012 Exam
 Court
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction
Venue
Choice of law Rule
Law applied
Delay
Other Factors
Overall Analysis
N.D.E.D (federal)
S.D.E.D. (federal)
Yes. Diversity
[Fed Q?]
Yes.
Specific, b/c Factory
[General?]
Yes. 391b1 or b2, b/c factory in Henri
Rest. 2nd so place of engineering
Negligence, b/c
Garibaldi, WD is place of engineering.
18 months
Not good, b/c negligence
Henri Superior Court, E.D.
(state)
Other court
(May need more rows)

11. Introduction to Former Adjudication
2 concepts
Res judicata / claim preclusion
Collateral estoppel / issue preclusion
Res judicata
Cannot litigate same claim several times
Finality
If two claims are closely related to each other (e.g. same transaction or occurrence)
Then must bring them together. Compulsory joinder
If litigate one claim and then try to litigate the other
Second claim will be barred by res judicata
Collateral estoppel
If issue resolved in one case, cannot relitigate that issue in subsequent case
Suppose long-term contacts
Litigation I. breach in Court: contract is valid
Litigation II. Breach in cannot relitigate contact validity
Key issue is “non-mutual” collateral estoppel
Case I. A sues B for patent infringement. Court: patent invalid
Case II. A sues C for patent infringement. Can relitigate validity?
No estoppel if person against whom estoppel asserted was not a party in first case
2nd court applies CE and RJ rules of court which decided first case