III. Preliminaries 1: Notices, Service of Process, Opportunity to be Heard | I. Glenn Cohen | May 30, 2013


This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

III. Preliminaries 1: Notices, Service of Process, Opportunity to be Heard

by I. Glenn Cohen Show/Hide
    1. 1.1 Show/Hide More Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen
      While I have given you portions of the case pertaining to notice as well as the in personam v. in rem distinction, focus on the notice materials, which are the core of the case. The rest is an appetizer for the personal jurisdiction section of the course.
      1. 3.2.1 Show/Hide More FRCP 64
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 64: Seizing a Person or Property
      2. 3.2.4 Show/Hide More Shaumyan v. O'Neill
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen
        Did the statute in Doehr die after the Supreme Court decision? Not quite….This case involved a fight between a homeowner and contractor hired to do repairs. When the homeowner was not happy with the quality of the work he would not pay. The contractor retaliated by getting an ex part prejudgment attachment of the owner's home. While that state case was pending, the homeowner sued in FEDERAL court to block the application of the attachment statute as unconstitutional after Doehr. How did the Third Circuit court of appeals rule? Was this case distinguishable?
      1. 3.4.2 Show/Hide More FRCP 65 (a)(1), (b), (c), (d)
        Please read FRCP 65 (a)(1), (b), ©, (d)
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.

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