cases

Primary tabs

Ariella kattler kupetz's picture

Bookmark to learn: Login to use bookmarks.

Statistics

'Repetition is the mother of all learning.'

Bookmark to learn: Login to use bookmarks.

Add to collection ... add cases to your collections:

Help using Flashcards ...just like in real life ;)

  1. Look at the card, do you know this one? Click to flip the card and check yourself.
  2. Mark card Right or Wrong, this card will be removed from the deck and your score kept.
  3. At any point you can Shuffle, Reveal cards and more via Deck controls.
  4. Continue to reveal the wrong cards until you have correctly answered the entire deck. Good job!
  5. Via the Actions button you can Shuffle, Unshuffle, Flip all Cards, Reset score, etc.
  6. Come back soon, we'll keep your score.
    “Repetition is the mother of all learning.”
  7. Signed in users can Create, Edit, Import, Export decks and more!.

Bookmark to learn: Login to use bookmarks.

Share via these services ...

Email this deck:

Right: #
Wrong: #
# Right & # Wrong of #

Service

Rio Properties Inc

Answers

Zielinkski v Philadelphia Piers- if improper denial, deemed to admit

Amended Pleadings

Beeck v. Aquaslide N' Sive Corp- amendment with leave of the court should be freely given when justice requires

Relation Back

Krupski v. Costa Crociere- claim is related, D knew of claim within R4(m), D knew or should have known of suit but for P's mistake

(focus more on the knowledge of the D than the P)

Sanctions

Hadges v. Yonkers Racing- Safe Harbor Rule

Joinder

United States v. Heyward-Robinson- same parties, time frames, same basic set of facts. court says claims are related, breach one gives rise to another. logical relationship between claims.
compulsory counterclaims require transaction/occurence interpreted broadly to require a logical relationship not immediateness of connection

Class Action

Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes- commonality= each class member must have experienced the discrimination int he same way

Discovery

Gonzales v. Google, Inc- cost shifting, discovery is fluid and can be flexible

Claw Back Agreement

Hickman v Taylr- work product

Discovery Violation Sanctions

Poole ex Rec Elliot Textron- sanctions because conduct was to delay.
Atty fees require misconduct and bad faith by clear and convincing standard

Default

Colleton Prep Academcy, Inc. v. Hoover- not prejudice P, meritorious defense, act with promptness, good faith, no history

Summary Judgment
1

Celotex- no evidence in support of claim

Summary Judgment 2

Anderson- burden of proof "preponderance of evidence" has to be incorporated into sj when judge thinks about it

Summary Judgment
3

Matsushita- If there are competing inferences given equal weight by law, P must produce evidence that supports the unlawful inference>lawful one. If 50%, deny MSJ. Inference needs to be >51%. (misapplication= in any claim with competing inferences of relatively equal probability, summary j must be granted bc party can get beyond 50%)

Evidentiary law of claim is incorporated into the summary j standard

Jury

Markman- patent case should be decided by judge not jury

Jury 2

Edmonson- preemptory challenges cannot be baed on race/gender

JMOL

Reeves v. Sanderson- no JMOL, raised an inference of discrimination

New Trial

Dadurian- finding is against the great weight of evidence

Relief from Judgment

Aikens- no extraordinary circumstance that would give P right to reopen case

Claim Preclusion

Nestor v. Pratt- damages not available in 1st case, no claim preclusion

Claim Preclusion 2

Taylor v. Sturgell- no mutuality, need same parties (6 exceptions- agree to be precluded, legal privity, class actions, nonparty assums control like IRS, agent or proxy, special statute like bankruptcy)

Issue Preclusion

Cromwell- partial issue preclusion granted

Issue Preclusion 2

Parklane Hosiery- offensive issue preclusion. P could not have easily joined in the 1st claim, judgement doe snot result in unfairness to D

Erie

Swift- led to inequitable treatment and forum shopping

Erie 2

substantive issue- apply state law
procedural issue- federal law

Hana

Pt 1- Erie only applies when twin aims are implicated: 1 forum shopping 2 unequal treatment of diverse litigants

Pt 2- If there is a federal rule on point, must apply if constitutional and valid under the REA