To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library






Here are 27 multiple-choice questions. The fact patterns in these questions are principally derived from Steve Emanuel’s First-Year Q&As, an 1144-question book published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. The questions in that book are short-answer (yes/no); I have adapted these questions to a multiple-choice format, and extensively rewritten the answers, especially for this
CrunchTime volume. — SE

1.          Paula and Pete were hit by a truck driven on the job by an employee of Trucking Corp., a corporation incorporated in Delaware engaged in the trucking business. The accident occurred in California, where Paula and Pete were living at that time. Trucking’s headquarters (from which the top executives direct the company’s operations) are in Michigan, but most of its lower-level employees and customers are based in or near Miami, Florida, and most of its trucking routes are entirely within Florida. After the accident, Paula and Pete moved to Miami, where they planned to retire.

After moving, Paula and Pete contacted a lawyer, who filed suit for them against Trucking in federal district court for the Southern District of Florida (which includes Miami). The suit, which said that it was based on diversity jurisdiction, alleged that Paula and Pete had each suffered personal injuries in excess of $75,000. Trucking moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Trucking’s motion should be:

(A) Granted, because the plaintiffs were citizens of California when they were injured.

(B) Granted, because Trucking and the plaintiffs are all citizens of Florida.

(C) Denied, because diversity subject matter jurisdiction exists.

(D) Denied, because Trucking is a citizen of Delaware and the plaintiffs are not.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following