Civil Procedure Keyed to Coundback
0 of 4 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
A patient sued a doctor for medical malpractice in federal court. After the plaintiff presented her case, the defendant moved for a judgement as a matter of law. Although several witnesses for the plaintiff gave testimony that the judge found unlikely, the judge denied the defendant’s motion for judgement as a matter of law. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant renewed his motion for judgement as a matter of law and moved in the alternative for a new trial.
How should the judge rule, assuming he still believes that the plaintiff’s evidence was unlikely to be true?CorrectIncorrect
The plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court for breach of contract. The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $125,000. Judgement was entered on June 1. On June 10, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. On June 18, the plaintiff files to enforce the judgement. The court has not issued any orders since the final judgement on June 1.
May the plaintiff enforce the judgement?CorrectIncorrect
A minivan driver from State A and a semi-truck driver from State B were involved in a serious collision on a highway in State B. The minivan driver sued the truck driver in State A for negligence, and served the truck driver with the summons and complaint via first-class mail. Although the truck driver received the documents, he failed to respond to them or appear in court. The minivan driver eventually obtained a valid default judgment in state court. State A’s requirements for service of process are the same as the requirements under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
If the minivan driver seeks to enforce the State A judgment against the truck driver in State B, will the driver be successful?CorrectIncorrect
A student at a private university sued the university in federal court for negligence after he fell from scaffolding in a university-owned theater building. At trial, after briefing from both parties, the court permitted the jury to hear testimony that there had been several previous accidents in the same building. The jury found for the student, and the university appealed. One of the university’s arguments on appeal is that the testimony about the previous accidents should have been excluded as irrelevant and highly prejudicial.
Which standard of review applies to this argument?CorrectIncorrect