TOPICS: summary judgment, plausible pleading CASES: Matsushita, Scott v. Harris; Twombly, Like claims decided treat litigants the same Fairness Impartiality & Consistency. regardless of status. TOPICS: preclusion v. table,” sideline-sitters, forum shopping (Erie) Stare Decisis, “gaming CASES: v. Walker, Blonder-Tongue, Parklane, Taylor, Moitie, Access & Opportunity to be Heard. How do we ensure equal access to justice system? In tension with efficiency. TOPICS: Day in court ideal, notice pleading, litigants v. plausibility, preclusion, virtual pro se representation. CASES: Dioguardi, Erickson, Doehr, Taylor, Wilks Federalism. When does the need for uniformity, efficiency, outweigh state’s interest in governing selves? TOPICS: federal common law, Doctrine, state law in federal courts, federal law in state Erie courts CASES: Art III §2, Art VI REA, RDA, Swift, Clearfield cf. Erie, Klaxon, Semtek ‘Supremacy,’ Tradition v. Adaptation. Scalia v. Breyer. Should procedure conform to old interpretations, devices? Or change to accommodate new developments in technology, society? TOPICS: power (Territorial v. contacts”), AIC, supplemental jurisdiction, jury “minimum trials CASES: R23, 1367, Pawloski, Int’l Shoe, Burnham, Shaffer, Personal jurisdiction. Sovereignty full within. Providing remedy. – Limitation on the states to exert their authority outside of their territorial borders. Grant of full faith and credit. Expectations based on stare decisis. Note circularity. Planning conduct based on amenability to suit. Standard based test. Give up efficiency and certainty for accuracy and due process. Benefit vs. burden. (Burnham; Carnival) Balancing stare decisis with changing societal norms (technology, commerce, international relations) Internet jurisdiction. Reach of federal courts. Prevention of vertical forum shopping. (No constitutional barrier). Notice. Have to be given opportunity to contest in order for adversarial system to work. Default judgments. Not determined on the merits Prejudgment attachment. Deprivation of property requires due process under 5A and 14A. Government is the one seizing the property. Risk of erroneous deprivation Immediate post-deprivation hearing Evidence showing on the merits prior to hearing
TOPICS: summary judgment, plausible pleading CASES: Matsushita, Scott v. Harris; Twombly, Fairness Impartiality & Consistency. Like claims decided treat litigants the same regardless of status. TOPICS: Stare Decisis, preclusion v. “gaming table,” sideline-sitters, forum shopping (Erie) CASES: Walker, Blonder-Tongue, Parklane, v. Taylor, Moitie, Access & Opportunity to be Heard. How do we ensure equal access to justice system? In tension with efficiency. TOPICS: Day in court ideal, notice pleading, pro se litigants v. plausibility, preclusion, virtual representation. CASES: Dioguardi, Erickson, Doehr, Taylor, Wilks Federalism. When does the need for uniformity, efficiency, outweigh state’s interest in governing selves? TOPICS: federal common law, Erie Doctrine, state law in federal courts, federal law in state courts CASES: Art III §2, Art VI ‘Supremacy,’ REA, RDA, Swift, Clearfield cf. Erie, Klaxon, Semtek Tradition v. Adaptation. Scalia v. Breyer. Should procedure conform to old interpretations, devices? Or change to accommodate new developments in technology, society? TOPICS: power (Territorial v. “minimum contacts”), AIC, supplemental jurisdiction, jury trials CASES: Pawloski, Int’l Shoe, Burnham, Shaffer, R23, 1367, Personal jurisdiction. Sovereignty – full within. Providing remedy. Limitation on the states to exert their authority outside of their territorial borders. Grant of full faith and credit. Expectations based on stare decisis. Note circularity. Planning conduct based on amenability to suit. Standard based test. Give up efficiency and certainty for accuracy and due process. Benefit vs. burden. (Burnham; Carnival) Balancing stare decisis with changing societal norms (technology, commerce, international relations) Internet jurisdiction. Reach of federal courts. Prevention of vertical forum shopping. (No constitutional barrier). Notice. Have to be given opportunity to contest in order for adversarial system to work. Default judgments. Not determined on the merits Prejudgment attachment. Deprivation of property requires due process under 5A and 14A. Government is the one seizing the property. Risk of erroneous deprivation Immediate post-deprivation hearing Evidence showing on the merits prior to hearing
CivPro_McKenzie_Fall_2011.docx