Main Content

Casebook Credits History Find

Content from the following sources has been used in the creation of this casebook:

  • Cohen CivPro h2o Version

    Authors:
    • 1: Introduction original
    • 1.2.1: Marc Galanter, Why The "Haves" Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change original
    • 1.2.2: [OPTIONAL] William Fisher, American Legal Education and Legal Theory in the Twentieth Century, The Cambridge History of Law in America original
    • 1.3: Simple (?) Introductory Case original
    • 1.3.2: Doe v. United Services Life Insurance Company original
    • 3: Preliminaries 1: Notice, Service of Process, Opportunity to be Heard original
    • 3.2: Notice original
    • 3.2.1: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. original
    • 3.3: Service of Process original
    • 3.3.1: Service of Process in the Federal System original
    • 3.3.6: Insurance Co. of North America v. S/S "Hellenic Challenger" original
    • 3.3.8: Wyman v. Newhouse original
    • 3.4: Opportunity To Be Heard original
    • 3.4.1: Deprivations by the State original
    • 3.4.2: Deprivation by "Private" Individuals original
    • 3.4.2.4: Shaumyan v. O'Neill original
    • 3.4.3: Contemporary Application: Enemy Combatants and Others original
    • 3.4.3.2: The No-Fly List Problem original
    • 3.5: Introduction to Remedies: Preliminary Injunctions and TROs original
    • 4: Preliminaries 2: Subject Matter Jurisdiction original
    • 4.2: Introduction & Theory original
    • 4.2.1: Introduction to Subject Matter Jurisdiction original
    • 4.2.2: "Constitutional Limits in Litigation” From Yeazell 7th edition. original
    • 4.2.3: Excerpts of Burt Neuborne, The Myth of Parity original
    • 4.2.4: Excerpts of William B. Rubenstein, The Myth of Superiority original
    • 4.3: Diversity Jurisdiction original
    • 4.3.1: The Statute and Theory original
    • 4.3.1.4: Strawbridge et al. v. Curtiss et al. original
    • 4.3.1.5: Bank of United States v. Deveaux original
    • 4.3.2: Req #1: Amount in Controversy original
    • 4.3.2.1: Note on Amount in Controversy original
    • 4.3.2.2: AFA Tours Inc. v. Whitchurch original
    • 4.3.3: Req #2: Diversity of Parties original
    • 4.3.3.1: Ochoa v. PV Holding Corporation original
    • 4.3.3.2: Note on Diversity of Parties original
    • 4.3.4: Judicially Created Exceptions original
    • 4.4: Federal Question original
    • 4.4.1: The Theory and the Constitutional Grant original
    • 4.4.1.1: Introduction to Federal Question Jurisdiction original
    • 4.4.1.4: Osborn v. Bank of United States original
    • 4.4.2: The Statutory Grant original
    • 4.4.3: The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule original
    • 4.4.3.1: Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley original
    • 4.4.3.2: After Mottley: The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule and Artful Pleading original
    • 4.4.3.3: Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum Inc. original
    • 4.4.3.4: Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. [OPTIONAL] original
    • 4.4.4: The Meaning of "Arising Under" original
    • 4.4.4.1: "Arising Under" Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction original
    • 4.4.4.2: Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson original
    • 4.4.4.3: Gunn v. Minton original
    • 4.4.4.4: [OPTIONAL] Additional History of "Arising Under," Cases (Read only if interested) original
    • 4.4.4.4.1: Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. original
    • 4.4.4.4.2: Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. original
    • 4.4.4.4.3: Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg. original
    • 4.4.4.4.4: Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh original
    • 4.5: Supplemental Jurisdiction original
    • 4.5.1: How We Got Here original
    • 4.5.1.1: United Mine Workers v. Gibbs original
    • 4.5.2: The Current State of the Law original
    • 4.5.2.2: [OPTIONAL] Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co. original
    • 5: Preliminaries 3: Personal Jurisdiction original
    • 5.1: Introduction to Personal Jurisdiction original
    • 5.3: Traditional Bases and Modern Constitutional Limits original
    • 5.3.1: Introduction to Pennoyer original
    • 5.3.2: Pennoyer v. Neff original
    • 5.3.4: Pennoyer to International Shoe original
    • 5.3.5: International Shoe Co. v. Washington original
    • 5.4: Introduction to Long Arm Statutes: State Long Arms original
    • 5.4.1: Introduction to Long-Arm Statutes original
    • 5.5: Development of General In Personam Jurisdiction original
    • 5.5.2: [OPTIONAL] Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations SA v. Brown original
    • 5.6: Development of Specific in Personam Jurisdiction original
    • 5.6.1.1: McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. original
    • 5.6.1.2: Hanson v. Denckla original
    • 5.6.1.3: World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson original
    • 5.6.1.4: Personal Jurisdiction: State Sovereignty and Plaintiff's "Minimum Contacts"? original
    • 5.6.3.1: Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. Solano Cty. original
    • 5.6.3.2: Interpreting Asahi: "Additional Conduct" and Foreign Defendants' "Unique Burden" original
    • 5.7: Long Arms in Federal Court original
    • 5.8: Personal Jurisdiction in the Internet Age original
    • 5.9: Traditional Bases Revisited original
    • 5.9.1: Physical Presence and “Tag” Jurisdiction original
    • 5.9.1.1: Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal. County of Marin original
    • 5.9.2: Consent original
    • 5.9.2.1: Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee original
    • 5.9.2.2: The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. original
    • 5.9.2.4: Notes on Consent to Jurisdiction original
    • 6: Preliminaries 4: Venue, Transfer of Venue, Removal, Forum Non Conveniens original
    • 6.1: Venue original
    • 6.1.3: Notes on Venue original
    • 6.1.4: Excerpt from George Neff Stevens, Venue Statutes: Diagnosis and Proposed Cure, 49 Mich. L. Rev. 307 (1951) original
    • 6.1.5: Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc. original
    • 6.2: Transfer of Venue original
    • 6.2.4: Hoffman v. Blaski original
    • 6.2.5: Notes on Transfer of Venue original
    • 6.3: Removal original
    • 6.3.4: Notes on Removal original
    • 6.4: Forum Non Conveniens original
    • 6.4.1: Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert original
    • 6.4.2: Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno original
    • 6.4.3: Notes on Forum Non Conveniens original
    • 7: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, More on Pleadings, and Other FRCP 12 Motions original
    • 7.1: Pleading Special Matters original
    • 7.1.2: Pleading Special Matters original
    • 7.2: "Regular" Pleading / Responding by FRCP 12(b) Motion original
    • 7.2.1: Motion to Dismiss from Bostock v. Clayton County (N.D. Ga) (companion case to Zarda) original
    • 7.2.2: Pre-2007 MTD Landscape original
    • 7.2.2.4: Dioguardi v. Durning original
    • 7.2.2.5: Amended Complaint from Dioguardi v. Durning original
    • 7.2.2.6: Conley v. Gibson original
    • 7.2.2.7: 12(b)(6) Dismissals and Res Judicata original
    • 7.2.3: Post-2007 Landscape (i.e. the TwIqbal revolution) original
    • 7.2.3.1: Complaint from Bell Atlantic v. Twombly original
    • 7.2.3.2: Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly original
    • 7.2.3.3: Ashcroft v. Iqbal original
    • 7.2.3.4: Twombly, Iqbal, and the Persistence of Conley original
    • 7.2.3.5: State Court Motions To Dismiss: Conley, Twombly, Or None Of The Above original
    • 7.2.3.7: The Procedural Tool Box: When To Dismiss Non-Meritorious Cases original
    • 7.2.3.8: American Nurses' Ass'n v. State of Ill. original
    • 7.3: Other Motions Attacking Pleadings original
    • 7.3.2: Rule 12(f) and Motions to Strike original
    • 7.4: Consolidation, Joinder, and Waiver of FRCP 12 Motions original
    • 8: Expanding the Lawsuit: Joinder of Claims and Parties, and Amendments original
    • 8.1: Introduction to Joinder original
    • 8.3: Permissive Party Joinder original
    • 8.3.2: State Approaches: Experiments With Compulsory Joinder original
    • 8.4: [OPTIONAL] Compulsory Party Joinder original
    • 8.5: Counterclaims (Compulsory vs. Permissive) original
    • 8.5.2: U.S. v. Heyward-Robinson Co. original
    • 8.5.3: Applying The Transaction & Occurrence Requirement original
    • 8.5.4: Failing To Plead Compulsory Counterclaims in Federal and State Courts original
    • 8.6: Cross-Claims original
    • 8.7: Third Party Claims (aka “Impleader”) original
    • 8.8: [OPTIONAL] Intervention original
    • 8.8.1: Intervention original
    • 8.9: [OPTIONAL] Interpleader original
    • 8.10: Amending the Pleadings and Relation Back of Amendments original
    • 8.10.2: Amendments and Singletary Case, from Subrin, Minow, et al original
    • 16: Class Actions original
    • 16.1: Introduction: Background on class actions from Friedenthal, Miller, et al (10th ed.) [READ QUICKLY] original
    • 16.2: Certification original
    • 16.2.1: The FRCP 23(a) Requirements original
    • 16.2.1.2: Materials on FRCP 23(a) Certification Requirements from Friedenthal, MIller, et al. (10th ed.) [NOTE DIRECTIONS] original
    • 16.2.1.3: Communities For Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Association original
    • 16.2.1.4: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes original
    • 16.2.2: The FRCP 23(b) Requirements original
    • 16.2.2.2: Notes on FRCP Rules 23(b) and 23(c) original
    • 16.2.2.3: Castano v. American Tobacco Co. original
    • 16.3: Familiar Issues in a New Context original
    • 16.3.1: Notice, Appeals, and Other Useful Information original
    • 16.3.1.1: Notice, Appeals, and Other Useful Information from Friedenthal, Miller, et al. (10th ed.) original
    • 16.3.1.3: Hansberry v. Lee original
    • 16.3.2: Subject Matter Jurisdiction original
    • 16.3.2.3: Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Venue in Class Actions original
    • 16.3.3: Personal Jurisdiction and Horizontal Choice of Law original
    • 16.3.3.1: Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts original
    • 16.3.3.2: Developments After Shutts original
    • 16.3.4: Erie and Vertical Choice of Law Issues original
    • 16.3.4.1: Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Ins. original
    • 17: Civil Procedure: Alternatives and Critique (We Are Unlikely to Get to This) original
    • 17.1: Alternatives (ADR) original
    • 17.1.1: ADR: Critiques and Alternatives for Civil Procedure from Friedenthal Miller et al 10th ed.) original
    • 17.2: Critiques of the Alternatives original
    • 17.2.1: Excerpts from Owen Fiss, Against Settlement original

  • Civil Procedure Fall 2021

    Authors:

  • Civil Procedure Fall 2021 NP Clone

    Authors: with additional contributions by:
    • 3.2.2: Dusenbery v. United States original
    • 3.2.3: Greene v. Lindsey original
    • 3.2.4: Jones v. Flowers original
    • 3.4.1.1: Goldberg v. Kelly original
    • 3.4.1.2: Mathews v. Eldridge original
    • 3.4.2.2: Fuentes v. Shevin original
    • 3.4.2.3: Connecticut v. Doehr original
    • 3.5.2: Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England original

  • Units 9 & 11

    Authors: with additional contributions by:
    • 9.2: Introduction original
    • 9.2.1: Introduction to Choice of Law, Vertical and Horizontal original
    • 9.3: What Law to Apply in Federal Courts (aka “The Erie Problem” or “Vertical Choice of Law”) original
    • 9.3.1: Swift and the the Erie Quartet original
    • 9.3.1.1: Introduction to the Pre-Erie world original
    • 9.3.1.2: Mini-Lecture: From Swift to Erie (15 mins) original
    • 9.3.1.3: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins original
    • 9.3.1.4: Case Note: Erie original
    • 9.3.1.5: Guaranty Trust v. York original
    • 9.3.1.6: Case Note: Guaranty Trust original
    • 9.3.1.7: Between Guaranty Trust and Byrd original
    • 9.3.1.8: Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Cooperative Inc. original
    • 9.3.1.9: Case Note: Byrd original
    • 9.3.1.10: Hanna v. Plumer original
    • 9.3.1.11: Case Note: Hanna original
    • 9.3.2: Later developments original
    • 9.3.2.1: Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. original
    • 9.3.2.3: Stewart Organization Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. original
    • 9.4: The Basics of Horizontal Choice of Law original
    • 9.4.1: Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co. v. Carroll original
    • 9.5: Erie, Moving Cases, and Choice of Law original
    • 9.5.1: Introduction to Erie, Moving Cases, and Choice of Law original
    • 11: Summary Judgment original
    • 11.1: Introduction and Adickes original
    • 11.1.1: Introduction to Summary Judgment from Subrin Minow et al. original
    • 11.1.2: Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. original
    • 11.1.3: FRCP 56 original
    • 11.2: Summary Judgment: The “Trilogy” (and Scott v. Harris) original
    • 11.2.2: Scott v. Harris original
    • 11.2.3: Speaking For Itself: The Videotape In Scott v. Harris. [NOTE DIRECTIONS] original
    • 11.2.4: Dan M. Kahan, David A.Hoffman, & Donald Braman, Whose Eyes are you Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 837 [NOTE DIRECTIONS] original

  • Units 12 & 13

    Authors: with additional contributions by:
    • 12: Introduction to Trial original
    • 12.1: Choosing a Judge or Jury for Trial original
    • 12.1.2: FRCP 38 original
    • 12.1.3: FRCP 39 original
    • 12.2: The Federal Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial original
    • 12.2.1: “The Right to a Jury Trial” from Richard Freer, Civil Procedure (3d ed. 2014) original
    • 12.3: Selecting and Challenging Individual Jurors original
    • 12.3.1: Selection and Composition of the Jury original
    • 12.3.2: Challenging Individual Jurors original
    • 12.3.3: Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray original
    • 12.3.4: Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. original
    • 12.4: Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Directed Verdict) original
    • 12.4.1: Note on Taking the Case from the Jury: Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law original
    • 12.4.2: FRCP 50 original
    • 12.4.3: Galloway v. United States original
    • 12.4.4: Excerpt from Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Chamberlain [don't read till instructed] original

  • Units 12 & 13

    Authors: with additional contributions by:
    • 13: Post-Trial Motions original
    • 13.1: The Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (aka “Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law After The Verdict,” “J.N.O.V.”) original
    • 13.1.1: FRCP 50 original
    • 13.1.2: Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman original
    • 13.2: Motion for a New Trial original
    • 13.2.1: FRCP 50(c)-(e) original
    • 13.2.2: FRCP 59 original
    • 13.2.3: Tesser v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. original
    • 13.3: [OPTIONAL] Conditional New Trial (Additur and Remittitur) original
    • 13.3.1: Fisch v. Manger original
    • 13.3.2: Powers v. Allstate Insurance original
    • 13.4: Motion for Relief from Judgment (Briefly) original
    • 13.4.1: FRCP 60(a)-(c) original

  • Units 14 & 15

    Authors: with additional contributions by:
    • 14: Appeal original
    • 14.1: The Final Judgment Rule (and Built-In Exceptions) original
    • 14.1.3: Note on the Final Judgment Rule original
    • 14.1.4: Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel original
    • 14.1.5: Comparison: New York State Appeals original
    • 14.2: The Collateral Order Doctrine original
    • 14.2.1: Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. original
    • 14.2.2: Will v. Hallock original
    • 14.2.3: More on the Collateral Order Doctrine original
    • 14.3: Mandamus original
    • 14.4: Standard of Review and Timing on Appeal original
    • 14.4.1: Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 4(a) original
    • 14.4.2: Standard of Review and Timing on Appeal original
    • 15.2: Issue Preclusion (aka “Collateral Estoppel”) original
    • 15.2.1: Basics original
    • 15.2.1.1: Introduction to Issue Preclusion original
    • 15.2.1.2: Cromwell v. County of Sac original
    • 15.2.1.3: More on the "Actually Litigated" Requirement original
    • 15.2.2: Mutuality original
    • 15.2.2.1: Traditional Mutuality and Indemnification original
    • 15.2.2.2: Bernhard v. Bank of America original
    • 15.2.2.3: Blonder-Tongue Laboratories Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation original
    • 15.2.2.4: Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore original
    • 15.2.2.5: Offensive vs. Defensive Collateral Estoppel original

  • Working Edition Cuts

    Authors: with additional contributions by:
    • 15: Former Adjudication: Claim and Issue Preclusion original
    • 15.1: Claim Preclusion (aka “Res Judicata”) original
    • 15.1.1: Introduction to Claim Preclusion original
    • 15.1.2: Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie original
    • 15.1.3: Rush v. City of Maple Heights original
    • 15.1.4: Additional Notes on Claim Preclusion original

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use. Material included from the American Legal Institute is reproduced with permission and is exempted from the open license.