Preliminaries 1: Notice, Service of Process, Opportunity to be Heard | I. Glenn Cohen | June 23, 2014

H2O

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.

Preliminaries 1: Notice, Service of Process, Opportunity to be Heard

Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen Show/Hide
  1. 1 Show/Hide More Notice
    Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
    1. 1.1 Show/Hide More Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. [NOTE COMMENT]
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: 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.
    2. 1.3 Show/Hide More Greene v. Lindsey
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
    3. 1.4 Show/Hide More Jones v. Flowers
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
    1. 2.1 Show/Hide More Basics
      Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
      1. 2.1.2 FRCP 3
      1. 2.2.2 Show/Hide More Wyman v. Newhouse
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
      1. 3.1.1 Show/Hide More Goldberg v. Kelly
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
      2. 3.1.2 Show/Hide More Mathews v. Eldridge
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
      1. 3.2.1 Show/Hide More FRCP 64
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 64: Seizing a Person or Property
      2. 3.2.2 Show/Hide More Fuentes v. Shevin
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
      3. 3.2.3 Show/Hide More Connecticut v. Doehr
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
      4. 3.2.4 Show/Hide More Shaumyan v. O'Neill [NOTE DIRECTIONS]
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen

        [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?

      1. 3.3.1 Show/Hide More Hamdi v. Rumsfeld [NOTE DIRECTIONS]
        Original Creator: I. Glenn Cohen Current Version: I. Glenn Cohen
        In the majority opinion, focus on the section from paragraph 80 on.
      1. 3.4.1 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.

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