Impishee, tried my best to answer your Qs:
Fed Civ Pro:
- Can a class action class certification have immediate appealability? (I think my lean sheets say yes, but the Adaptibar lecture says no).
Yes, class action certifications can be appealed within 14 days of the certification.
- Do jury verdicts generally need to be unanimous for Civ Pro? I think they do (I was confusing this with crim law/crim pro where I think split decisions are okay unless there are only 6 jurors).
In federal courts, jury verdicts need to be unanimous regardless of whether it is a civil or criminal case. State courts get more leeway (can have a 9-3 decision, but 6-person juries ALWAYS must be unanimous, even in state court)
- For statutory interpleader, is the diversity requirement that the stakeholder and a claimant OR is it that there needs to be diversity between two claimants (i.e. doesn't matter whether there is diversity on both sides of the claim).
Just two claimants have to be diverse. Stakeholder's citizenship is irrelevant.
-FRCP normally allows 21 days safe harbor to correct a Rule 11 issue right? (again, lean sheets seems to say this is only state level, but I don't think that's correct).
Yes, 21 days is the time the other side has to correct or withdraw their pleading.
- For Offensive use of Collateral Estoppel, I have notes from the Adaptibar lecture that this is "generally not permitted" (Ex: Nonparty in 1st case is now a plaintiff in 2nd case, Kelly tries to sue company XYZ and wins. Then Jim tries to sue XYZ and tries to collaterally estop XYZ from denying liability.) Does this "generally not permitted" mean Jim generally won't be able to collaterally estop XYZ from denying liability?. I also see there are modern rules here where it actually could be allowed (if not unfair, full and fair opportunity, party could forsee multiple suits, and Jim couldn't have been easily enjoined, etc). Just want to make sure I understand both.
Offensive collateral estoppel generally not permitted unless: defendant had full and fair opportunity to litigate, multiple suits foreseeable, plaintiff could not hvae joined in the first action, and no inconsistent judgments would result.
- For Defensive use of Collateral Estoppel, it looks like this is where Kelly tries to sue XYZ for products liability. Kelly loses. Now Kelly sues ABC for same products liability. Since Kelly lost before, this would mean DEF could collaterally estop J from bringing the claim. Does this still count for if it appears that ABC is actually guilty instead of XYZ? (So, basically, sorry Kelly, shoulda brought your claim against the right party the first time?)
Yeah I think she is collaterally estopped because she could have joined ABC in the first action? As long as plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first action she will be estopped.
- What's your general rule for remember UCC/common law in contracts? I generally think of UCC where at least one party is a merchant and the contract is for the sale of goods. Just running into a few odd rules, but is that generally correct?
Just watch out for cases where no merchants are involved but its still a sale of goods. It will still be governed by UCC.
- For hearsay, if a person is testifying on the stand regarding something someone said to them out of court, is that out-of-court statement said by the other person generally admissible (since the person heard the statement which was directed at them, and even though they didn't say the statement, they are on the stand to testify/be cross-examined), or is that one that would need to be brought in under an exemption or exception?
That is hearsay. It would have to be brought in under an exemption or exception if it is being introduced for the truth of the matter asserted within the statement.
- For prior inconsistent statement, when is that generally allowed for only impeachment v. when allowed for substantive evidence?
Only for impeachment unless it was under oath, then it can be brought in for both impeachment and substantive purposes. Or if it was a party opponent who said it it can also come in for substantive purposes under the admission by party-opponent exemption.
- Is admitting a witness' opinion testimony for a defendant's truth and honesty generally allowed? Or, can it only be permitted in a civil trial where character is issue and in criminal trial where the defendant 'opened the door'?
A witness's opinion testimony is only allowed as to a pertinent character trait of Defendant. So if defendant is on trial for assault, then the witness can say he is a peaceful person. The witness can't just say he is truthful unless the defendant's credibility is first attacked. In a civil trial, character evidence is always allowed if character is the issue of the case (e.g. defamation)