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

Add to Library










action barred by limitations period

amendment at trial

adding legal theory

adding new party

as a matter of course

changing factual allegations,

consented-to amendment

counterclaim, amendment to

denial, reasons

Doe defendants

example cases allowing amendment

example cases denying amendment,

mistake as to proper party

rationale for liberal allowance

relation back

against new party

against same party

Rule 4(m) period for service

review standard

separate action where amendment denied

standard for allowance

Amount-in-controversy requirement. See Diversity jurisdiction

Ancillary jurisdiction. See Supplemental jurisdiction

Archngel Gabriel

unexpected appearances

Arising-under jurisdiction


American Law Institute proposal

amount-in-controversy requirement

concurrent jurisdiction with state courts

Congressional control

constitutional scope

Osborn case

contract involving patent


defense as basis

distinction between constitutional and statutory scope

distinction between jurisdiction and challenge on the merits

diversity irrelevant

example cases

factual dispute only

Grable case

Holmes test

“law of the United States,” meaning

merits challenge compared to jurisdiction

Merrell Dow case

Mottley rule

subsequent history of Mottley

omitting federal claim

Osborn case

patent cases

state court jurisdiction in arising-under cases

state statute

statutory scope

Supreme Court jurisdiction to review

well-pleaded complaint rule

Challenges to personal jurisdiction


appeal of jurisdictional finding

federal courts

interlocutory appeal

in the enforcing state

challenge in enforcing state


collateral attack

default judgment

Full Faith and Credit Clause

merits barred from litigation

methods of obtaining enforcement

registration of judgment

power to question jurisdiction of rendering court

collateral estoppel on

challenge in rendering state appeal of jurisdictional objection

federal courts

interlocutory appeal


defending merits after challenge rejected

Federal Rules (Rule 12(b)(2)) approach

property as basis for jurisdiction

special appearance

waiver by defending on merits

collateral attack

collateral estoppel on jurisdiction issue

common scenarios chart

enforcement of judgment in other state

Full Faith and Credit Clause

Full Faith and Credit Clause

judgment on the judgment

long-arm statute applicable

property as basis of jurisdiction

registration of judgment in other state

second challenge to jurisdiction barred

in enforcing state

special appearance

waiver of objection

under Rule 12(b)

Choice of law. See Conflicts of law; Erie doctrine

Claim preclusion. See Res judicata

Collateral estoppel


“actually decided” requirement

alternative holdings

multiple claims

multiple defenses w/ general verdict

“actually litigated” requirement

omitted defense

compared to res judicata

complex example

evidence offered that was omitted at first trial


general verdict

issue preclusion, alternate name


“necessary to the judgment” requirement

alternative holdings



basic estoppel distinguished

basic estoppel requirements applicable

no estoppel against non-party to first action

Bernhard case

Blonder-Tongue case

burden of proof


cross-claim omitted from first action


discretion to apply


mutuality rule

abandonment in federal courts


cautionary factors in applying

Parklane case

same issue requirement

“wait and see” problem

personal jurisdiction issue


res judicata distinguished

same issue requirement

summary judgment based on supporting materials

“wait and see” problem

Conflicts of law


certification to ascertain applicable law

choice of law approaches

consortium injury, First Restatement approach

Erie doctrine

cases transferred under §1404(a)

proper conflicts of law rule under

federal court

Ferens case

First Restatement

locating place of injury

forum non conveniens

forum shopping for favorable law

by defendants

effect of modern choice of law theories

forum state choosing own law

“horizontal uniformity”


Challenges to personal jurisdiction (continued)

interest analysis

introduction to

Klaxon case


“lex loci delicti” (place of the injury) rule

application of other state’s law

limitations period

in federal court

most significant relationship approach

procedure/ substance distinction

in federal court

state court


transferred cases

Van Dusen case

“vertical uniformity”


Directed verdict. See Judgment as a matter of law




admissions, request for

attorney-client privilege

automatic disclosure



electronic means

geographic limits

objections at

procedure for scheduling

redeposing witness

Rule 30(b)(6) notice

trial deposition

written questions

destruction of documents

document definition

electronic data

exams, physical or mental


as fact witnesses

non-testifying experts

financial information

Hickman case

information discoverable


contention interrogatories

counsel’s signature as to legal objections

duty to investigate

limit on number


sample set

judge’s authority to limit

jurisdictional issues

medical records


motion to compel

non-party witnesses

notice of deposition

objection based on burden

physical or mental exam

private information



confidentiality compared

facts vs. communications

objections at deposition


protective orders


requests for admission

requests for production

authorizing requesting party to search records

destruction of documents

electronic records

from non-party

inspection of premises or things

“possession, custody, or control”

Rule 26(a)

Rule 26(b)(1)

Rule 26(b)(3)

Rule 26(b)(4)

Rule 33

Rule 34


Schulansky case interrogatories


admissibility, relation to

under prior rule




supplementation of responses

tax return


witness in other state

work product

anticipation of litigation

documents and tangible things

Discovery (continued)

prepared for party

facts not protected

Hickman case

mental impressions

prepared for party

Diversity jurisdiction


aliens, suits involving

admitted for permanent residence

amendment destroying diversity

amount-in-controversy requirement

aggregation of claims

effect of supplemental jurisdiction statute

intangible damages

joint tortfeasors

multiple defendants

multiple plaintiffs

multiple theories of relief

punitive damages

St. Paul Mercury test

applicable state law. See Erie doctrine

“citizen” defined for purposes of

alternative test

corporate citizenship

domicile test

party domiciled in state but not U.S. citizen

U.S. citizen domiciled abroad

intent requirement

change after arrival in state

“indefiniteness” requirement

combined with federal question claim against second defendant

compared to constitutional diversity grant

compared to personal jurisdiction

complete diversity requirement

applicability where defendants are co-citizens

concurrent state court jurisdiction over

constitutional and statutory scope compared

corporations, application of diversity

Hertz case

nerve center test

principal place of business


dandelion, amount-in-controversy test

date for determining

district where events took place not relevant

district where suit is brought not relevant

domicile test

alternative test for

compared to role of domicile in personal jurisdiction

Exxon-Mobil case

personal jurisdiction, relation to

principal place of business


requirement for Congressional authorization

source in Article III

state court jurisdiction over

Strawbridge rule. See complete diversity requirement, supra

third-party claim

effect on main claim

measuring diversity of

Domicile. See Diversity jurisdiction; Personal jurisdiction

Erie doctrine



Archangel Gabriel, visitation

ascertaining state law

certification procedures

federal court opinions, effect in state court

effect on lower federal court

predictive approach

in states with multiple intermediate courts

intermediate appellate opinions

where state court applies law of another state

relief from judgment based on state court change in law

Supreme Court predictive approach

bewildered law student

eventual recovery

Glannon as

Black & White Taxicab case

Holmes dissent

burden of proof as substantive

Byrd case

applied to example

continuing validity after Hanna

effect of countervailing federal policies

matters of form and mode

relation to Erie and York

certification of state law issues

conflict with state law

conflicts of law. See Conflicts of law

direct conflict between state law and federal rule or statute

Erie decision

applied to examples

easy part

interpretation of state statute


Archangel Gabriel

Glannon bails

traumatized law student

federal constitutional provisions, conflict with state law

federal judicial practices

conflict with state law

distinguished from Federal Rules and statutes


Walker case

federal procedure, application of. See substance/procedure distinction, infra

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

conflict with state law

constitutional power to promulgate

drafting of

proper analysis under Erie doctrine

Rule 15(c)

statutory authority to promulgate

federal statutes, conflict with state law

framework for analyzing Erie problems

Hanna v. Plumer case

defendant’s argument based on York

Hanna Part I

application in Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.

application to conflicts involving federal judicial practices

applied to jury instructions

burden of proof

compared to Hanna Part II

inequitable administration of the laws under

Hanna Part II

abridging substantive rights under REA second subsection

application to conflicts involving federal rules and statutes

direct conflict for Erie purposes

modified outcome-determinative test

judicial practices. See federal judicial practices, supra

legal realist view of federal power

local usages

“outcome-determinative” test

pleading intangible damages

policy of uniformity

procedure, effect of Erie doctrine upon. See substance/procedure distinction, infra

Rule 15(c). See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, supra

Rules Enabling Act

first subsection, authority to promulgate procedural rules

second subsection, limit on rule-making authority

Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. §1652)

interpretation under Swift v. Tyson

reinterpretation in Erie


source in federal system

state statute or rule in conflict with federal provision

statutes of limitations

substance/procedure distinction

burden of proof

conflicts with state law

direct conflict for Erie purposes

federal constitutional provisions

federal judicial practices

federal procedural rules

federal statutes

constitutional authority for separate federal procedural rules

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effect of Erie doctrine upon

Erie doctrine (continued)

“outcome-determinative” test

purely substantive issues

statutes of limitations under Erie

types of provisions that may conflict with state law

York decision

supplemental jurisdiction, application to

Swift v. Tyson rule

application where federal cases differ

constitutional problem

dissenting view of Justice Holmes

natural law basis

problems posed by

rejection in Erie

treatment of state statutes

Walker case

York decision

analyzed under Hanna Part I


Archangel Gabriel, unexpected appearances

Erie angst

flower-watering jobs

Glannon bails

intimidated law student

Federal courts

applying state law, Erie doctrine. See Erie doctrine

conflicts doctrine in diversity cases. See Conflicts of law

Federal question jurisdiction. See Arising-under jurisdiction

Federal subject matter jurisdiction. See also Arising-under jurisdiction; Diversity jurisdiction

compared to joinder rules (see Chapter 17)

compared to personal jurisdiction

concurrent jurisdiction with state courts

constitutional basis in Article III

federal questions. See Arising-under jurisdiction

limited nature of

removal. See Removal jurisdiction

single basis sufficient

state jurisdiction over cases within

waiver of defect in

Forum non conveniens. See Venue

General in personam jurisdiction. See Personal jurisdiction

Impleader. See Joinder of claims and parties, Rule 14(a)

Intervention. See Joinder of claims and parties, Rule 24

Issue preclusion. See Collateral estoppel

Joinder of claims and parties


compared to jurisdiction

compared to res judicata

counterclaims. See Rule 13, infra

cross-claims. See Rule 13, infra

entire controversy doctrine, 262

impleader. See Rule 14, infra

intervention. See Rule 24, infra

joinder of claims. See Rule 18(a), infra

joinder of plaintiffs and defendants

alternative liability

different theories or damages

relation to jurisdiction

jurisdiction, independent requirement for


Rule 13

applied to examples

counterclaim, additional party to

cross-claim compared to counterclaim

Rule 13(a)

claim against co-defendant

Rule 13(b)

Rule 13(g)

applied to examples

cross-claims for indemnification

combined claim with Rule 18(a) claim

jurisdiction compared

same transaction or occurrence requirement

unrelated claim

Rule 13(h)

third-party claim against plaintiff compared to counterclaim

waiver of counterclaim

Rule 14


compared to Rule 20

contingent liability

contribution claims

complaint, example

counterclaim distinguished

derivative liability requirement

discretion to decline jurisdiction

effect on jurisdiction over original action

indemnification claims


jurisdiction over third-party claims

compared to joinder requirement


subject matter


liability to plaintiff insufficient basis

multiple third-party defendants

permissive nature of rule

personal jurisdiction over third-party defendant

plaintiff impleading third party

plaintiff’s claims v. third-party defendant

pleading requirements

Rule 14(b)

Rule 18(a), added claim

state impleader rules

subject matter jurisdiction

over main claim

third-party defendant

claim against fourth-party defendant

claim against plaintiff


defenses to main claim

defenses to third-party claim

impleader by

transaction-or-occurrence test distinguished

venue, effect of third-party claims upon

Rule 18(a)

applied to examples

claims by parties other than plaintiffs

combined with Rule 14

combined with Rule 20(a)

permissive nature of rule

compared to res judicata

Rule 19


dismissal where absentee cannot be joined

party to be joined if feasible

absentee needed for just adjudication

multiple judgments v. inconsistent obligations

prejudice to absentee if not joined

reasons joinder may not be feasible

res judicata effect of adjudication on absentee

Rule 19(b)—discretion where joinder not feasible

Rule 20(a) contrasted

Rule 20(a)

additional claim under Rule 18(a)

applied to examples

claims based on different theories

multiple defendants

permissive nature of rule

Rule 14 contrasted

same transaction or occurrence requirement

Rule 24, intervention


adequate representation

affirmative action case

discretionary factors for refusing intervention


limited intervention

of right


Rule 20(a) compared

third-party claims. See Rule 14, supra

Judgment as a matter of law


affirmative defense as basis


appellate court’s power to order entry of judgment as a matter of law

effect of reversal of judgment as a matter of law


final decision rule

state courts, interlocutory appeal

burden of production


burden of proof


judge-tried action

Chamberlain case as example

Judgment as a matter of law (continued)

chart comparing motions for new trial and judgment as a matter of law

conditional motion for new trial

contradictory evidence

credibility of witnesses

directed verdict

early practice

relation to judgment as matter of law

use of “directed verdict” terminology in state practice

due process limits on grant

federal practice, judgment as matter of law

j.n.o.v. compared to judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict)

j.n.o.v. defined

judge-tried action

judgment as a matter of law distinguished

judgment notwithstanding the verdict

compared to judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict)

compared to new trial, chart

“managerial judging” applied to judgment as a matter of law

motion before verdict as prerequisite to renewal of motion

motion made after verdict (j.n.o.v.)

appeal, with new trial motion

combined with new trial motion

compared to pre-verdict motion


motion before verdict

motion by other party insufficient to preserve motion

motion on different ground insufficient

rationale for allowing renewed motion


motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim compared

new trial distinguished

physically impossible evidence

plaintiff’s motion


presentation of evidence at trial—chart

rationale for jnov


compared to judge-tried action

“federal” standard

motion made after verdict

plaintiff’s evidence standard

relation to directed verdict

scintilla test

summary judgment compared

time for motion


plaintiff’s motion

prior to completion of plaintiff’s case

Judgment not withstanding the verdict. See Judgment as a matter of law

Jurisdiction. See Diversity jurisdiction; Personal jurisdiction; Removal jurisdiction; Subject matter jurisdiction; Supplemental jurisdiction

Long-arm statutes


“arising out of” requirement

bluebook foible

California long-arm statute

compared to constitutional limits

component manufacturer

contracting provision

distinguished from minimum contacts test

enumerated act statutes

federal courts

Gray case

indirect sales in state

insurance provision

limits of due process

out-of-state acts

Pennsylvania statute

rationale for enumerated act long-arm

relation to due process clause

requirement for

tortious act in state

tortious act out of state

transacting business provision

two-step analysis


broad grant of all constitutional jurisdiction

enumerated act


unconstitutional application, example

Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act



World-Wide case as example

Minimum contacts. See Personal jurisdiction


compared to pleading

directed verdict. See Judgment as a matter of law

to dismiss. See Motion to dismiss


more definite statement

summary judgment. See Summary judgment

Motion to dismiss


failure to state a claim

amendment after dismissal of complaint


factual allegations taken as true

legal allegations in complaint

pleading errors

purpose of motion

raising after answer

standard for granting

unsettled legal issues

vague or general allegations

pre-answer motion

affirmative defenses

alternative to answer

amendment to insert omitted preliminary defense

answer, right to assert defenses and objections

counterclaim, preliminary objections to

dismissal of complaint and case compared

failure to state a claim (see sub-entry above)

fatal defenses

insufficient service of process

compared to insufficiency of process

multiple Rule 12(b) motions

necessary party

optional nature

personal jurisdiction

raising multiple Rule 12(b) objections


removal, effect on waiver of Rule 12(b) defenses

Rule 19

Schulansky case. See Schulansky case

special appearance compared to pre-answer motion

subject matter jurisdiction

time to answer if motion denied

types of objections

curable defects

failure to state a claim

fatal defects

more definite statement

process and service of process

waiver of pre-answer defenses

amendment to cure

defenses “available” at first motion

“disfavored defenses”


failure to state claim

omitted from answer

omitted from motion

personal jurisdiction

subject matter jurisdiction




natural history

excessive pommeling of

encounter with Minotaur

Necessary parties. See Joinder of parties, Rule 19

New trial



combined motion with j.n.o.v.


interlocutory nature of new trial decision

new trial motion after reversal on appeal

standard for review

state practice

chart comparing to judgment as a matter of law

conditional motion for

credibility considered on motion

errors supporting grant


interlocutory order for new trial

state practice

New trial (continued)

judge-tried cases

judgment as a matter of law, combined motion with new trial motion


objection, necessity of objection at time of error

partial new trial

prevailing party, motion by

standard for grant based on inadequacy of evidence

timing of motion

weight of the evidence

Non-mutual collateral estoppel. See Collateral estoppel, non-mutual

Notice. See Service of process

Pendent jurisdiction. See Supplemental jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction


acts outside state

advertising as basis

“arising out of” requirement

Asahi case. See also stream of commerce cases, infra

benefits and protections of state law

Burnham case

casual or isolated contacts

challenges to (see Challenges to personl jurisdiction)

compared to subject matter jurisdiction


constitutionally recognized bases

corporation—principal place of business

defendant-oriented nature of

deliberate in-state contact



jurisdiction based on

plaintiff’s not a basis

rationale as basis for

relevance to personal and subject matter

federal courts

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)

Fifth Amendment

foreseeability, relevance of

forum state’s interest

Fourteenth Amendment

general in personam jurisdiction

application to individuals

based on permanent facility

based on principal place of business

compared to corporate citizenship for diversity purposes

compared to general subject matter jurisdiction

time for assessing general contacts

inconvenience to defendant

in-state service of process

on corporate officer

insurance case

interests of state in asserting jurisdiction

International Shoe case


long-arm statutes. See Long-arm statutes

minimum contacts test

“arising out of” requirement

benefits and protections of state law

casual or isolated contacts

continuous contacts,

foreseeability of in-state use

importance of other factors

individual defendants


long-arm statutes distinguished

multiple states, contacts with

out-of-state acts

plaintiff’s contacts

proper time for assessing contacts

purposeful availment

quality and nature of contacts


single contact

solicitation in state

stream of commerce cases. See Stream of commerce, infra

sufficiency where more contacts with other state

unrelated contacts

tort in state

Pennoyer v. Neff

plaintiff’s interest in relief

plaintiff’s residence, relevance of

process. See Service of process

product as agent for service

purposeful availment requirement

reasonableness of taking jurisdiction

removed action

service of process. See Service of process

compared to personal jurisdiction

in state not sufficient for jurisdiction over corporations

“Shoe” spectrum

single act as basis

solicitation in state

regular advertising

single solicitation

specific jurisdiction

state and federal compared

stream of commerce cases

application to American manufacturers

goods sold to wholesaler outside forum state

“mere awareness” as basis for jurisdiction

out-of-state manufacturer

waiver of objection, failure to raise in answer or pre-answer motion. See also Challenges to personal jurisdiction

Pleading. See Amendments; Pre-trial litigation process; Schulansky case

Pre-answer motions. See Motions to dismiss

Pre-trial litigation process. See also Schulansky case


assignment of case to judge


see generally


cooperation of counsel

discovery. See Discovery


judicial case management



tactical issues in choice of court

Removal jurisdiction


amendment, effect of

destroying diversity


amount in controversy

constitutional basis

counterclaim as basis

derivative jurisdiction rule


diversity cases, limits

adding non-diverse party to avoid removal

alleging insufficient amount to avoid removal

in-state defendant

rationale for

entire case removed

exclusive federal jurisdiction, removal of case involving

federal question case

amendment adding federal claim

exclusive federal jurisdiction, removal of case involving

federal defense insufficient


where diversity is present as well

fraudulent joinder

in-state defendant in diversity cases

arising-under jurisdiction case

notice of

original federal jurisdiction, relation to

federal issue raised in answer

relation to Mottley problem

patent claim

claim for breach of patent contract

personal jurisdiction objection preserved

plaintiff, right to remove


after removal

documents filed in federal court

effect on state court orders

in-state defendant

multiple defendants

defendants not served

defendant served after removal

unanimity requirement

notice of removal

allegations necessary to sustain removal

plaintiff removal


lack of jurisdiction

time limit, procedural defects

state court authority, after removal

time for raising procedural defects in removal

time for removal

where right to remove unclear

proper court for removal


relation to original federal jurisdiction


Removal jurisdiction (continued)

lack of jurisdiction

time limit, procedural defects

Schulansky case. See Schulansky case

state court orders, after removal

supplemental claims

transfer, compared to removal

venue in removed cases

Res judicata


action in different court

affirmative defense of

amendment to add omitted claim in first action

change in applicable law

change while appeal pending

relief from judgment

child support claim

claim defined

state practice

claim splitting

distinct types of damages

theories of relief

compared to joinder rules

continuing court orders



state rules



asbestos cases

omitted in first suit

subsequent to trial in first suit

default judgment

evidence not admitted at first trial


exclusive federal jurisdiction

“final judgment” requirement

impleader claim

additional claim under Rule 18(a)

by impleaded party against plaintiff


joinder compared


jurisdictional dismissal

law/equity compared

merger doctrine

myrmidons, natural history

“on the merits” requirement

default judgment

dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

effect of subsequent change in applicable law

failure to prosecute

jurisdictional dismissal

summary judgment

pleading res judicata as affirmative defense



relation to procedural rules

joinder compared to res judicata

relief from judgment to avoid

Restatement standard


“same claim” requirement

compared to early common law practice


joinder compared

omitted damage claims

subsequently discovered damages

omitted evidence

omitted theories

Restatement (Second) of Judgments §24

same transaction test

claims arising from unrelated events

subsequent claim under same contract

unpaid judgment

“same parties” requirement

different plaintiffs

different defendants

permissive joinder compared

summary judgment, res judicata effect

supplemental claims

“two-disease rule”

unpaid judgment

Rules Enabling Act. See Erie doctrine.

Rules of Decision Act. See Erie doctrine

Schulansky case



in support of motion to dismiss

in support of motion to transfer



adoption by reference

affirmative defenses

certificate of service

counterclaim in answer

answer to counterclaim

applicable pleading rules

jurisdictional allegation

jury trial claim

waiver of jurisdictional objection by filing



inconsistent positions

objection to jurisdiction included

responses to plaintiff’s allegations

Rule 11 applicable

service of process

time to answer, removed action



adoption by reference

caption requirements

claims for relief

demand for relief



factual allegations heading

jury trial claim

legal theories

paragraph form

parties heading

Rule 11 requirements




effect on objection to jurisdiction



inconsistent pleading

local rules

motion for summary judgment. See summary judgment, infra

motion to dismiss

combined with other motion


lack of personal jurisdiction

affidavit in support

memorandum in support


Rule 11 requirements

motion to transfer

affidavit in support


third-party standing

proposal and estimate



answer after removal

answer prior to removal

effect on objection to jurisdiction

jury trial request upon removal


additional allegations in notice

amount in controversy allegations

caption material

change from “petition” to “notice”

example in Schulansky

papers included

place of filing

Rule 11 applicable

time for filing

notification of removal

petition distinguished

unanimity requirement


theories of relief

third-party claim



“bulge” service



demand for relief


pleading rules applicable

Rule 11 applicable


discretion to dismiss


inconsistent pleading

legal theories

personal jurisdiction over

pleading rules applicable

related additional claim

service of process

subject matter jurisdiction

theories for impleading third party



Schulansky case (continued)

Service of process

actual notice not received

agent for service of process

amenability to federal jurisdiction

constitutional limits

due process

Fifth Amendment


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4

federal long-arm provision

Rule 5 compared

impleader claim

interpleader case

limitations, relation to

Massachusetts service provisions


methods of service



dwelling or usual place of abode


out-of-state service

proper person to make service

proper person to receive service

authorized agent for service


managing agent

officer of corporation

“suitable age and discretion”

third-party defendant

Rule 14 impleader claim

Schulansky case

state service provisions

Massachusetts service provision


notice, due process

papers served

personal jurisdiction compared

process other than summons

proof of service

relief from judgment based on lack of notice

return of service

special service statutes

state service provisions


compared to complaint

Schulansky case, summons form

third-party defendant

time for service

waiver of service

State court jurisdiction

concurrent with federal courts

subject matter

Stream of commerce. See Personal jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction. See also Arising-under jurisdiction; Diversity jurisdiction; Federal subject matter jurisdiction; Removal jurisdiction; Supplemental jurisdiction

Article III jurisdiction

compared to joinder

compared to personal jurisdiction

concurrent, state and federal

civil rights cases


state courts

compared to federal

waiver of objection

Summary judgment


admissible evidence requirement

allegations in opposition to motion

burden on opposing party

Celotex case

conflict in moving party’s evidence


emotional distress claim

factual disputes on other issues

failure to file opposing materials

malicious prosecution claim

material fact requirement

opposing materials

partial summary judgment

party with burden of proof


questions of law

standard for grant

supporting materials

vague or general allegations

Supplemental jurisdiction


Aldinger case

amount-in-controversy requirement

multiple-defendant cases

multiple-plaintiff cases

ancillary jurisdiction

proper analysis prior to §1367

applied to examples

case or controversy requirement

common nucleus of operative facts test

relation to transaction or occurrence test

common situations involving

compared to joinder rules

constitutional basis

unrelated claim


ancillary jurisdiction

supplemental jurisdiction


ancillary jurisdiction


supplemental jurisdiction

additional party

plaintiff vs. third-party defendant

discretion to decline

under Gibbs case

under §1367(c)

diversity cases, limits on jurisdiction prior to §1367

cases lacking complete diversity

limits under §1367

supplemental jurisdiction where amount-in-controversy insufficient

Exxon-Mobil case

Finley case

Gibbs case

impleader situation

added claim under Rule 18


joinder rules compared

jurisdictionally sufficient claims

Kroger case

“nucleus of operative facts” requirement

pendent jurisdiction, relation to

§1367 compared

pendent party jurisdiction

procedure where supplemental jurisdiction declined

section 1367

applied to examples

case-or-controversy requirement


pendent party jurisdiction





standard for exercise of supplemental jurisdiction

relation to Gibbs standard

statutory authority for supplemental jurisdiction provided

tension of subject matter jurisdiction and joinder rules

third-party claims

claim of plaintiff against third-party defendant

counterclaim of plaintiff against third-party defendant

Rule 18(a) claim added to third-party claim

third-party defendant’s claim against plaintiff

three-step analysis under §1367

”Three-ring” analysis


comparison of requirements for choosing proper court


examples of all three rings applied

Third-party claims. See Joinder of claims and parties, Rule 14

Transfer of venue. See Venue



compared to other requirements

domicile test for residence

events or omissions in district

federal actions

compared to corporate citizenship under §1332(c)

corporation as defendant

general in personam jurisdiction as basis

multi-district state

specific in personam jurisdiction as basis

districts, not states

domicile, as residence

events giving rise to claim

“where the claim arose” compared

“fallback” provisions

personal jurisdiction as basis

contacts in other district in state

“residence” for venue purposes

Venue (continued)




“where the claim arose”

forum non conveniens

state courts

federal courts

forum selection clause

omission as basis


removed action

reside, meaning of

residence of defendants

for venue and other purposes

§1391(b), text

§1391(c) and (d)

general in personam jurisdiction as basis

incorporation as basis

multi-district states

relation to s. 1391(a) and (b)

specialized venue provisions

patent cases

state provisions

sua sponte dismissal for improper venue

transfer of venue

District where claim “might have been brought”


law applied in transferred case

motion for

relation to choice of law

Schulansky case


state court cases

Van Dusen case

unincorporated associations

waiver of venue objection

failure to raise in pre-answer motion or answer

forum selection clause

sua sponte dismissal for improper venue

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following