Civ Pro exam by Prof. Dorf Answer

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
samiseaborn
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:55 pm

Civ Pro exam by Prof. Dorf Answer

Postby samiseaborn » Sat May 01, 2010 8:41 pm

I was just doing a quick issue spotting run through Question 1a of the practice exam linked in the 1L thread above. I was wondering if anyone else has done it, if you could verify some things/see if you spotted anything different. I've only been able to do one practice with answers and am afraid I may be missing things without knowing it.

The first question was about personal jurisdiction over Hamdan. So I started by running the tests and eliminating the possibilities for general and specific jurisdiction over Hamdan (mere awareness of where the plaintiffs lived not being enough, H wasn't looking to torture someone in Kent). Then because it was an internet case, you usually do the zippo test, but because Hamdan didn't make the website, that's questionable as well. I ended it with the effects test, but couldn't decide if that was something you should really only apply to website owners as well, or it was possible for anyone reaching through the internet with intent to cause something to happen in another state.

I know this is an over-simplified response, but like I said, I'm just worried about spotting all the issues at the moment.

User avatar
apper123
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Civ Pro exam by Prof. Dorf Answer

Postby apper123 » Sat May 01, 2010 10:21 pm

Without looking at the question, it sounds like you did a darn good job of answering it. The best law school exam questions will all have no real answer.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Civ Pro exam by Prof. Dorf Answer

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Sat May 01, 2010 10:27 pm

samiseaborn wrote:I was just doing a quick issue spotting run through Question 1a of the practice exam linked in the 1L thread above. I was wondering if anyone else has done it, if you could verify some things/see if you spotted anything different. I've only been able to do one practice with answers and am afraid I may be missing things without knowing it.

The first question was about personal jurisdiction over Hamdan. So I started by running the tests and eliminating the possibilities for general and specific jurisdiction over Hamdan (mere awareness of where the plaintiffs lived not being enough, H wasn't looking to torture someone in Kent). Then because it was an internet case, you usually do the zippo test, but because Hamdan didn't make the website, that's questionable as well. I ended it with the effects test, but couldn't decide if that was something you should really only apply to website owners as well, or it was possible for anyone reaching through the internet with intent to cause something to happen in another state.

I know this is an over-simplified response, but like I said, I'm just worried about spotting all the issues at the moment.

You've done the constitutional analysis but you haven't done the long arm analysis. Even if PJx would be unconstitutional, you still need to do the long arm analysis.

User avatar
samiseaborn
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: Civ Pro exam by Prof. Dorf Answer

Postby samiseaborn » Sat May 01, 2010 11:00 pm

Ok, I think I skipped the long arm because the state of Kent didn't define one (unless I'm just misreading somewhere). Rule 4k says the federal court has PJ if the state court would. But since we don't know if the state court would, and there is no statute governing the issue, and there is a court that has general jurisdiction over Hamdan (Alaska), could you just end it with "maybe depending on what a hypothetical Kent long-arm might say? If it goes to the full extent of DP, then... "

Also, thanks for the feedback!

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Civ Pro exam by Prof. Dorf Answer

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Sun May 02, 2010 11:26 am

samiseaborn wrote:Ok, I think I skipped the long arm because the state of Kent didn't define one (unless I'm just misreading somewhere). Rule 4k says the federal court has PJ if the state court would. But since we don't know if the state court would, and there is no statute governing the issue, and there is a court that has general jurisdiction over Hamdan (Alaska), could you just end it with "maybe depending on what a hypothetical Kent long-arm might say? If it goes to the full extent of DP, then... "

Also, thanks for the feedback!

Say that you don't have sufficient facts because the long arm statute is not in the fact pattern.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eldon Tyrell, PrezRand and 7 guests