Source: https://www.lectlaw.com/files/lws03.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:16:33+00:00

Document:
C. JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; DIRECTED VERDICT AND J.N.O.V.
E. STANDARD FOR COURT’S REVIEW OF DIRECTED VERDICT/J.N.O.V.
after the making of the offer.
giving,” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). [p.80 Marek v.
fact gathering process takes place during discovery.
for the relief the pleader seeks.
many separate claims as the party has, regardless of consistency .
. . . All statements made shall be subject to . . . Rule 11.
pleading in the alternative is not justified.
constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.
defendant and prevention of “strike” suits.
“frivolous or malicious” pauperis suits.
law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose. . . .
faith attempt to extend or alter current law.
the light of after-discovered facts.
“[a]n empty head but a pure heart is no defense,” Thornton v.
prevents blind reliance on one’s client or even on co-counsel.
harassment for purposes of Rule 11 if it presents a valid claim.
is in discretion of judge.
a. To be served by Marshal, &c.
for answer if the state provides a longer period (Rule 12(a)).
action with court (Rule 4(j)).
introducing its own factual allegations.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 495 (1957).
motion is not a responsive pleading.
dismiss for failure to state a claim or for summary judgement.
These motions are not pleadings. Under the terms of F.R.Civ.P.
a matter of course” to amend his complaint.
on whether matter external to the pleadings is taken into account.
defenses/counterclaims raised in the answer.
getting to the question of whether demurrer should be granted.
the complained-of pleading is struck.
v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, 73 F.R.D. 460 (D. Del.
defenses, which may be stricken as a matter of law.
to appear, clerk may enter judgement without judge.
to appear), judge must enter judgement.
a. will plaintiff be prejudiced?
b. does defendant have meritorious defenses?
defendant was never served with process.
which permit the motion to be at any time.
U.S.C. § 1655) or where there has been a fraud upon the court.
judgement may be set aside.
only so much of it as is true and shall deny only the remainder.
it is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief.
admission; otherwise it operates as a denial.
Affirmative defenses must be plead or they are waived.
claim, Rule 13(a); no independent federal jurisdiction required.
it is already the subject of pending litigation, id..
the proceeding, res judicata will bar their later assertion.
cross-claim is between defendants inter se.
e.g., motion for a TRO.
plaintiff thus becomes the defendant.
amendment unless there is good reason not to.
admission of extra-pleading materials where justice requires, &c.
aid of claims already made, and not to introduce new claims.
Every action shall be prosecuted by the real party in interest.
Note that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the trustee, &c.
is res judicata effect as to interested parties.
would lead to infamy in the community, e.g., transexuality (Doe v.
to the disclosure of their identities to the public record. . . .
(quoting Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158 (N.D. Cal. 1981)).
they should be heard together, if unrelated, heard separately.
claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.
district court’s “bulge” jurisdiction (Rule 4(f)).
not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter . .
double, multiple or inconsistent obligations . . . .
and efficient settlement of controversies.
either to defendant or to plaintiff.
claim on which the original defendant is being sued.
&c., just as an original defendant might.
will not create an impermissible diversity problem.
a condition to getting the thing.
claimants on the other, must be from different states.
Stallworth v. Monsanto, 558 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1977).
monkey wrench into the works.
will be bound by the result; limited to 23(b)(3) cases.
and burden of the discovery requested (Rule 26(g)).
government to waive or change the law.
counterparty to submit to medical examination.
of examinee must go to the heart of the case.
refuses to comply, a variety of sanctions are available (Rule 37).
provision, almost infinitely malleable at the will of the judge.
they will provide for such opinions.
information is not otherwise available.
high governing officials are privileged.
the opponent or a third party.
Summary judgement is a new procedure created by the Fed. R. Civ.
until disposed of the acts of the doctor are not material).
the case to go forward.
of the witness will be a determinative factor in the case.
at trial, the burden remains on the movant in summary judgement.
fact to go forward based on facts not allegations (Celotex v.
with substantial evidence to refute defendant.
after completion of discovery and by the plaintiff.
grounds he has not completed discovery.
with power to negotiate a settlement.
may be amended only in the case of manifest injustice.
otherwise noted, exhibits are deemed authentic and admissible.
predictor of how a jury would behave; used as a settlement tool.
Must be demanded at a very early date or the right is waived.
action) heard by judges or by Chancellors in England in 1791?
action in equity or at law in English practice in 1791?
theory, it may be characterizable as “equitable” relief.
is enough of a legal historian to handle it.
the lower courts, who have almost universally refused to apply it.
believes him, but cf. Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.
the legal issues will predominate and a jury trial be required.
United States is a party, but not always.
preserved is the jury’s role as trier of fact.
tried by a jury in the district court.
jury to find for the presenting party.
reasonable jury could have found as the jury did.
jury and as to which the court has reserved judgement.
“substantial evidence” in favor of the non-movant.
of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury.
Court of appeals has right to review both.
trial, and the plaintiff will have to go through it all again.
verdict. No I didn’t say this makes sense.
actual verdict, notwithstanding the general verdict.
brought to bear on the juror may permit impeachment of a verdict.
to rapidly reach a verdict.
Clause, exercise jurisdiction over a party?
two questions, minimum contacts and reasonableness.
notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted.
the courts pursuant to the relevant “long-arm” statute?
capacity; all of his assets are subject to suit.
item of property, e.g., suit to quiet title.
the rights of a particular person therein.
against the owner not related to the property.
personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.
to two foreign (really foreign) corporations.
would result in being “haled into court” in the forum?
through the acts of a consumer.
State, such that it is fair to give the State jurisdiction?
of acts not relating to the defendant’s contacts with the state.
attenuated, minimum contacts are less likely to be found.
Supremes do it so why not you?
there, regardless of how long you are there or for what purpose.
One can even be served with process flying over the state.
accordance with the state’s procedures.
May suit be heard in that state?
Where in that state may the suit be heard?
would work hardship upon him.
was not subject to service.
under” the federal Constitution and laws.
narrower than the Constitution would permit.
suit is from a different state.
same state as any defendant party.
The “amount in controversy” must exceed $50,000.
(a) does the person make his or her residence there?
(b) with the intention of remaining?
husband. Don’t tell Hillary, she’ll go batshit.
of the business (book goes with “nerve center” test).
from the same state as a party on the other side of the case.
relief in excess of the statutory minimum, the suit may proceed.
the amount will not be recoverable.
claims exceeding the $50,000 mark.
construed than the applicable Constitutional provision.
the federal laws, is insufficient for arising under jurisdiction.
made purely to invoke jurisdiction.
1. The Bad Old Days; Ni-No! Ni-No! Ni-No!
their jobs to give or deny the federal courts jurisdiction.
hamster readers, go on to the next section.
b. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a): No, Really, What is It?
bringing a common law state fraud action while you were at it.
a. the claim raises a novel/complex state law question.
d. in exceptional circumstances, blah, blah, blah.
diverse or they try to dress them up as federal matters.
the words “Farrow Previn” will never be heard in ones courtroom.
amended if they tried. Talk about carved in granite!
if the claim is brought under state law.
important governmental purpose), Federal common law will apply.
not the claim is pled as a state law claim.
1. Is it an FRCP “R”ule?
be considered a priori constitutionally valid.
b. Is it Valid under the Rules Enabling Act?
not destroy the validity of the Rule.
test of being a valid Federal Rule).
also requiring the posting of bond required by local law).
plaintiffs, the twin Erie evils.
1. Does the situation fall within the ambit of the statute?
2. Is the statute Constitutional?
If so the Federal statute will control.

References: v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 

v. 
 § 1655
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 1367