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.
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:
MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (17/17 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/17 playlist item notes are private)1 | Show/Hide More | Introduction |
1.1 | Show/Hide More | Substantive |
1.1.1 | Show/Hide More | Introduction from Friedenthal Miller et al, Civil Procedure (10th ed. 2012) |
1.2 | Show/Hide More | Theoretical |
1.3 | Show/Hide More | Simple (?) Introductory Case |
1.3.1 | FRCP 10(a) |
1.3.2 | Show/Hide More | Doe v. United Services Life Insurance Company |
2 | Show/Hide More | The Basics of Pleading and Rule 11 |
2.1 | Show/Hide More | The "old" Days: Pre-FRCP |
2.2 | Show/Hide More | Pleading Basics in the FRCP system |
2.2.1 | FRCP 8(a), (d) and (e) |
2.2.2 | FRCP 84: Forms |
2.2.3 | Show/Hide More | FRCP Forms 10 - 19 [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
2.2.4 | Show/Hide More | Complaint from Gill v. OPM [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
2.3 | Show/Hide More | Responding to the Complaint by Answer (possibly followed by Reply) |
2.3.1 | FRCP 7 |
2.3.2 | FRCP 12(a) |
2.3.3 | FRCP 8(b) and (c) |
2.3.4 | FRCP 6 [SKIM] |
2.3.5 | Show/Hide More | Answer from Washington University v. Catalona. [SKIM; NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
2.4 | Show/Hide More | Rule 11 and the Truthfulness of Pleadings |
2.4.1 | FRCP 11 |
2.4.2 | Show/Hide More | "Sanctions” materials from Subrin, Minow et al., [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
3 | Show/Hide More | Preliminaries 1: Notice, Service of Process, Opportunity to be Heard |
3.1 | Show/Hide More | Notice |
3.1.1 | Show/Hide More | Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. [NOTE COMMENT] |
3.1.2 | Show/Hide More | Dusenbery v. United States |
3.1.3 | Show/Hide More | Greene v. Lindsey |
3.1.4 | Show/Hide More | Jones v. Flowers |
3.2 | Show/Hide More | III.B. Service of Process |
3.2.1 | Show/Hide More | Basics |
3.2.1.2 | FRCP 3 |
3.2.1.3 | FRCP 4(a) – (f), (h), (m) |
3.2.1.4 | FRCP 12(b)(4), (5) |
3.2.1.5 | Show/Hide More | FRCP Forms 3 - 6 [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
3.2.1.6 | Show/Hide More | Insurance Co. of North America v. S/S "Hellenic Challenger" |
3.2.2 | Show/Hide More | Immunity and Etiquette |
3.2.2.2 | Show/Hide More | Wyman v. Newhouse |
3.3 | Show/Hide More | Opportunity To Be Heard |
3.3.1 | Show/Hide More | Deprivations by the State |
3.3.1.1 | Show/Hide More | Goldberg v. Kelly |
3.3.1.2 | Show/Hide More | Mathews v. Eldridge |
3.3.2 | Show/Hide More | Deprivation by "Private" Individuals |
3.3.2.1 | Show/Hide More | FRCP 64 |
3.3.2.2 | Show/Hide More | Fuentes v. Shevin |
3.3.2.3 | Show/Hide More | Connecticut v. Doehr |
3.3.2.4 | Show/Hide More | Shaumyan v. O'Neill [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
[SKIM THIS – We won't spend a lot of time on it.]
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 parte 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 Second Circuit court of appeals rule? Was this case distinguishable?
3.3.3 | Show/Hide More | Contemporary Application: Enemy Combatants and Others |
3.3.3.1 | Show/Hide More | Hamdi v. Rumsfeld [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
3.3.3.3 | The No-Fly List Problem |
3.3.4 | Show/Hide More | Introduction to Remedies: Preliminary Injunctions and TROs |
3.3.4.1 | Show/Hide More | FRCP 65 (a)(1), (b), (c), (d) |
3.3.4.2 | Show/Hide More | Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England |
4 | Show/Hide More | Preliminaries 2: Subject Matter Jurisdiction |
4.1 | Show/Hide More | Theory |
4.2 | Show/Hide More | Introduction to Subject Matter Jurisdiction |
4.2.1 | Show/Hide More | Constitution, Article III, §§ 1, 2 |
4.3 | Show/Hide More | Diversity Jurisdiction |
4.3.1 | Show/Hide More | The Statute and Theory |
4.3.1.1 | Show/Hide More | 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a), (c) |
4.3.1.2 | Show/Hide More | Strawbridge et al. v. Curtiss et al. |
4.3.1.3 | Show/Hide More | Bank of United States v. Deveaux |
4.3.2 | Show/Hide More | Amount in Controversy |
4.3.2.1 | Show/Hide More | AFA Tours Inc. v. Whitchurch |
4.3.2.2 | Show/Hide More | Notes on Amount in Controversy |
4.3.3 | Show/Hide More | Diversity of Parties |
4.3.3.1 | Show/Hide More | Ochoa v. PV Holding Corporation |
4.4 | Show/Hide More | Federal Question |
4.4.1 | Show/Hide More | The Theory and the Constitutional Grant |
4.4.1.2 | Show/Hide More | Constitution, Article III, §§ 2 |
4.4.1.3 | Show/Hide More | Osborn v. Bank of United States [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
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.
4.4.2 | Show/Hide More | The Statutory Grant |
4.4.2.1 | Show/Hide More | 28 U.S.C § 1331 |
4.4.3 | Show/Hide More | The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule |
4.4.3.1 | Show/Hide More | Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley |
4.4.3.3 | Show/Hide More | Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. [OPTIONAL AS SUMMARIZED IN CHEAT SHEAT] |
4.4.3.4 | Show/Hide More | Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. [OPTIONAL AS SUMMARIZED IN CHEAT SHEAT] |
4.4.3.5 | Show/Hide More | Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum Inc. [OPTIONAL AS SUMMARIZED IN CHEAT SHEAT] |
4.4.4 | Show/Hide More | The Meaning of "arising under" |
4.4.4.2 | Show/Hide More | Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
4.4.4.3 | Show/Hide More | Gunn v. Minton [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
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.
4.4.4.4 | Show/Hide More | Additional, OPTIONAL Cases [Read if interested] |
4.4.4.4.1 | Show/Hide More | Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. [OPTIONAL] |
4.4.4.4.2 | Show/Hide More | Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. [OPTIONAL] |
4.4.4.4.3 | Show/Hide More | Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg. [OPTIONAL] |
4.4.4.4.4 | Show/Hide More | Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh [OPTIONAL] |
4.5 | Show/Hide More | Supplemental Jurisdiction |
4.5.1 | Show/Hide More | How We Got Here |
4.5.1.1 | Show/Hide More | United Mine Workers v. Gibbs |
4.5.1.2 | Show/Hide More | A Note on Pendent and Ancillary Jurisdiction Following Gibbs, from Friedenthal, Miller, et al (10th ed. 2012) [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
4.5.2 | Show/Hide More | The Current State of the Law |
4.5.2.2 | Show/Hide More | Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co. [NOTE COMMENT] |
4.5.2.3 | Show/Hide More | OPTIONAL: T&O v. CNOF [OPTIONAL, READ ONLY IF YOU WANT TO] |
4.5.2.3.1 | Show/Hide More | Shanaghan v. Cahill [NOTE DIRECTIONS; OPTIONAL] |
4.5.2.3.2 | Show/Hide More | Iglesias v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York [OPTIONAL] |
5 | Show/Hide More | Preliminaries 3: Personal Jurisdiction |
5.2 | Show/Hide More | Traditional Bases |
5.2.1 | Introduction to Pennoyer |
5.2.2 | Show/Hide More | Pennoyer v. Neff [NOTE DIRECTIONS] |
5.3 | Show/Hide More | The Modern Doctrine and the Constitutional Limits of Due Process |
5.3.2 | Show/Hide More | International Shoe Co. v. Washington |
5.4 | Show/Hide More | Introduction to Long Arm Statutes: State Long Arms |
5.4.2 | Show/Hide More | Gray v. Amer. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. |
5.5 | Show/Hide More | Development of General In Personam Jurisdiction |
5.5.1 | Show/Hide More | Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations SA v. Brown |
5.6 | Show/Hide More | More on Specific in Personam Jurisdiction |
5.6.1 | Show/Hide More | McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. |
5.6.2 | Show/Hide More | Hanson v. Denckla |
5.6.3 | Show/Hide More | World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson |
5.6.6 | Walden v. Fiore |
5.6.7 | Show/Hide More |