Class Notes

 

8/18/03 – Civil Procedure: What is it?  Gordon v. Steele

 

8/19/03 – Why go forum shopping?  The judge’s reasoning in Gordon

 

8/20/03Pennoyer, notice, service of process

 

8/21/03 – Review of Pennoyer, in personam, in rem, quasi in rem, Field’s vision of power and jurisdiction, collateral attack

 

 

8/25/03 – More quality time with Pennoyer, a few hypotheticals from the notes, Field’s dicta

 

8/26/03 – Power, consent and notice; Harris v. Balk, Hess v. Pawloski, Rule 12

 

8/27/03 – Hierarchy of Rule 12(b) motions, hypotheticals on Rule 12, International Shoe Co. v. Washington

 

8/28/03 – The Shoe model for personal jurisdiction, a graphical representation of the model (not pictured), general and specific jurisdiction, hypotheticals on Shoe

 

 

9/2/03Shaffer v. Heitner, shareholder derivative actions, “Shoe rules everything around me”, a hypothetical

 

9/3/03 – Review of Shaffer, one more hypothetical, a review of the two types of quasi in rem actions, notice and foreseeability, concurring opinions in Shaffer, McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., Hanson v. Denckla

 

9/4/03McGee again, Hanson as the evil twin of McGee, Harrods, World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

 

 

9/8/03 – The two functions of the Shoe test, the “convenience” prong and White’s factors, minimum contacts in World-Wide

 

9/9/03 – Forum shopping and other tactics, Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court

 

9/10/03 – O’Connor on fair play, “stream of commerce plus”, the Asahi dissenters

 

9/11/03 – The application of Asahi in the Circuit Courts, Scalia fever, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, Brennan confuses us

 

 

9/15/03 – Minimum contacts as a threshold, forum selection, contracts are not contacts per se

 

9/16/03Rule 4(k), personal jurisdiction and the Internet, Zippo

 

9/17/03Washington Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. Concrete Placing Co., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall, Perkins v. Benguet, Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., Blackmun slices and dices minimum contacts

 

9/18/03 – Finishing up Helicopertos, Burnham v. Superior Court, Scalia’s “tradition!” v. Brennan’s Shoe and Shaffer.

 

 

9/22/03Grace v. MacArthur, Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, policy comes to the fore, interesting procedural points in Carnival

 

9/23/03 – Notice – Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., procedural posture, jurisdiction and notice in Mullane, the limits of Mullane

 

9/24/03Rule 4(d) on waiver of service of process, Yeazell’s Rule 4 questions

 

9/25/03Gibbons v. Brown, “long-arm” statutes

 

 

9/30/03 – Venue: what is it?  The structure of the federal venue statute, problems on venue, Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd., jurisdiction and venue in Dee-K

 

10/1/03 – Why venue?  Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, a catalog of strategic maneuvers, the Gilbert balancing test

 

10/2/03 – Applying the Gilbert factors to Piper, choice of law, transfer of venue – 28 U.S.C. § 1404, what does Piper mean?  Remember Asahi?

 

 

10/13/03 – Terminology of federal jurisdiction, sources of federal subject matter jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction – Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley, the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule, constitutional versus statutory power

 

10/14/03 – Diversity jurisdiction, Mas v. Perry, the Rule of Complete Diversity

 

10/15/03 – Hypotheticals on Mas, Saadeh v. Farouki, amount in controversy

 

10/16/03 – Injunctions and aggregation, hypotheticals on amount in controversy, why diversity jurisdiction?  Supplemental jurisdiction, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, pendant jurisdiction, ancillary jurisdiction, pendant party jurisdiction

 

 

10/20/0328 U.S.C. § 1367, Finley v. United States, § 1367(b), Owen v. Kroger, hypothetical, what about Zahn?  § 1367 (c), removal, Caterpillar v. Lewis

 

10/21/03 – More on Caterpillar, the Erie problem, Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, easy Erie

 

10/22/03 – Still in Erie, Brown & Yellow Taxicab Co. v. Black & White Taxicab Co., what’s unconstitutional?  Erie as theory, Guaranty Trust Co. v. York

 

10/23/03 – More easy Erie, Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, eerie Erie, Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, the Byrd Balancing Test, an example of Byrd

 

 

10/27/03 – Review, Hanna v. Plumer, the twin aims of Erie, one test for Erie problems, some hypotheticals, another test, Burlington National Railroad v. Woods, Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh, Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., the ghost of Ragan, Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.

 

10/28/03 – Choice of law, Gries v. Modell, the most significant relationship test, Morgan v. Biro, hypothetical

 

10/29/03 – Survey!  The big picture of contemporary litigation, incentives to litigate, United States v. Hatahley, the open market rule, the mitigation principle, individualized pain and suffering

 

10/30/03 – Punitive damages, Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, BMW of North America v. Gore

 

 

11/10/03 – Degree of reprehensibility, ratio between actual damages and punitive damages, comparable sanctions, Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., State Farm v. Campbell, financing litigation, the American Rule v. the English Rule, characteristics of the American Rule, insurance, contingency fees, legal aid and pro bono

 

11/12/03 – Fee shifting, Rule 68 and Fee Shifting Statutes, Evans v. Jeff D.

 

11/13/03 – Provisional remedies, Fuentes v. Shevin, the constitutional issue, procedural due process

 

 

11/17/03Fuentes small and Fuentes grande, Bridges v. Diesel Service, Inc., Rule 11, Bell v. Novick Transfer Co., Rule 8, Rule 9(b), notice pleading versus heightened pleading

 

11/18/03 – Joinder, a hypothetical, Temple v. Synthes Corp.

 

11/19/03 – Discovery, Butler v. Rigby

 

11/20/03 – More on discovery, summary judgment, Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co.

 

 

12/1/03 – A quick look back at Houchens, Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment

 

12/2/03 – Quick review of yesterday, preclusion – Rush v. City of Maple Heights, claim preclusion versus issue preclusion

 

12/3/03Frier v. City of Vandalia, Illinois preclusion law versus the Restatement, the policy behind claim preclusion

 

12/5/03Martino v. McDonald’s System, Inc., Searle Brothers v. Searle

 

 

12/8/03 – Issue preclusion, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Parks

 

12/9/03 – A procedural vision

 

Back to Civil Procedure