Preliminaries 2: Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Brett Johnson | December 05, 2014

H2O

Preliminaries 2: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson Show/Hide
  1. 1 Show/Hide More Theory
    Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
    1. 2.1 Show/Hide More Constitution, Article III, §§ 1, 2
      Please read Art. III, §§ 1, 2
  2. 3 Show/Hide More Diversity Jurisdiction
    Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
    1. 3.1 Show/Hide More The Statute and Theory
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
      1. 3.1.1 Show/Hide More 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a), (c)
        Please read 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) and ©
      2. 3.1.2 Show/Hide More Strawbridge et al. v. Curtiss et al.
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
        This classic case is the origin of the “Complete Diversity” rule.
      3. 3.1.3 Show/Hide More Bank of United States v. Deveaux
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
        This classic case helps explains why the diversity-of-citizenship rule was put in place by the Framers.
    2. 3.2 Show/Hide More Amount in Controversy
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
      1. 3.2.1 Show/Hide More AFA Tours Inc. v. Whitchurch
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
      2. 3.2.2 Show/Hide More Notes on Amount in Controversy
        **NOTE: We will talk about how AIC works for class actions at the end of the course.  
    3. 3.3 Show/Hide More Diversity of Parties
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
  3. 4 Show/Hide More Federal Question
    Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
      1. 4.1.2 Show/Hide More Constitution, Article III, §§ 2
        Please re-read Art. III, §§ 2
      2. 4.1.3 Show/Hide More Osborn v. Bank of United States [NOTE DIRECTIONS]
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson

        NOTE: This case is complicated. I have endeavored to edit it such that it most closely resembles contemporary English but in some instances that was not possible. Have patience when reading it and do not spend more than 20 minutes on it.

        SUMMARY OF FACTS: The Bank of the United States brought suit against the state auditor of Ohio (Osborn) in federal court seeking an injunction to stop Ohio from collecting a tax the Bank believed was unconstitutional. Historically, the States opposed the Bank of the United States and often levied punitive taxes against it. Even though the court granted the Bank a temporary injunction, the state auditor forcibly entered the bank and took the money he claimed state was owed. The court ordered the state officials to return the money, who in response argued that the federal courts had no subject matter jurisdiction.

    1. 4.2 Show/Hide More The Statutory Grant
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
      1. 4.2.1 Show/Hide More 28 U.S.C § 1331
        Please read 28 U.S.C. § 1331
      1. 4.4.2 Show/Hide More Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson [NOTE DIRECTIONS]
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
        Read this AFTER you've read the cheat sheet which will walk you through most of the case.
      2. 4.4.3 Show/Hide More Gunn v. Minton [NOTE DIRECTIONS]
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson

        Summary/Edited Facts of Case:

        Vernon Minton developed a computer program (“TEXCEN”) for securities trading in the early 1990s. He leased it in 1995 to a securities brokerage. He applied to patent TEXCEN a little more than a year later, and the patent was issued in 2000.
        Minton then sued NASDAQ for patent infringement, represented by Mr. Gunn. NASDAQ obtained summary judgment on the grounds that the patent was invalid; an inventor is not entitled to a patent if “the invention was . . . on sale . . . more than one year prior to the date of the application,” and Minton had leased TEXCEN to Stark more than one year prior to filing his patent application. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
        Minton then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing for the first time that the lease agreement was part of ongoing testing of TEXCEN and therefore fell within the “experimental use” exception to the [one year rule]. The District Court denied the motion on the grounds that the experimental use argument was waived, Minton appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.

        1. 4.4.4.1 Show/Hide More Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. [OPTIONAL]
          Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
          Summarized in cheat sheet. OPTIONAL if you want to read more of it.
        2. 4.4.4.2 Show/Hide More Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. [OPTIONAL]
          Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
          Summarized in cheat sheet. OPTIONAL if you want to read more of it.
        3. 4.4.4.3 Show/Hide More Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg. [OPTIONAL]
          Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
          This is summarized in the cheat sheet and in Gun v. Minton, so reading it is OPTIONAL if you want more.
        4. 4.4.4.4 Show/Hide More Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh [OPTIONAL]
          Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
          This is summarized in the cheat sheet and in Gunn v. Minton, so reading it is OPTIONAL if you want more.
    1. 5.1 Show/Hide More How We Got Here
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
      1. 5.1.1 Show/Hide More United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
      2. 5.1.2 Show/Hide More A Note on Pendent and Ancillary Jurisdiction Following Gibbs, from Friedenthal, Miller, et al (10th ed. 2012) [NOTE DIRECTIONS]
        Read these cases carefully since we will spend some time on them even though the squibs are short.
    2. 5.2 Show/Hide More The Current State of the Law
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
      Note the directions for Jones and Shanaghan
      1. 5.2.2 Show/Hide More Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co. [NOTE COMMENT]
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
        This case will teach us a bit more about 1367(a),© and the CNOF test. It also reaches ahead to the idea of counterclaims that we will take up in the joinder unit of the course.
      2. 5.2.3 Show/Hide More OPTIONAL: T&O v. CNOF [OPTIONAL, READ ONLY IF YOU WANT TO]
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
        This is optional, advanced Civ Pro reading. We will not discuss it in class and it will not be on the exam.
        1. 5.2.3.1 Show/Hide More Shanaghan v. Cahill [NOTE DIRECTIONS; OPTIONAL]
          Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: Brett Johnson
          What happens when the federal basis for a case drops away, can you still continue to assert supplemental jurisdiction?
Close

Playlist Information

December 05, 2014

Author Stats

Brett Johnson

bjohnson

Other Playlists by Brett Johnson

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large