1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[sundance95]

@ahduth

Right, and they cite Walker immediately following that sentence. I think that is the approach I'll take, thanks for the response.

[Helmholtz]

for those of you taking con law now - which e&e did you buy? I see that there are two, I wanted to buy them before the next semester starts so I can scope it out a bit, but I'm not sure which one to buy.

I think that the ConLaw E&E is universally seen as the absolute worst E&E of the series and generally pretty worthless. FWIW.

It's worse than the Crim Law one?

Probably close, but I'll side with yes.

[jd20132013]

crim law's examples werent terrible

[Judge Philip Banks]

Well, the crim E&E compared to the torts, civ pro, property, and contracts ones is definitely the worst of that bunch. I don't have the con law one, so I can't say. But if con law one is worse than crim, it must be pretty bad...

[Hannibal]

There was actually no rule you could take away from Shady Grove in that way. Four votes said you only have to look at the federal rule in the test, while the concurrence said you have to look at whether the state rule of procedure is bound up with substantive rights.

Hmm. I was reading II-A which I thought is the majority opinion? I'll have to think about this some more, but it seems to me that if II-A has five votes then Rule 23 could not be abridged by any state law.

Ya, II-A has five votes, and is riddled with FRCP-supremacy language:

Rule 23 unambiguously authorizes any plaintiff, in any federal civil proceeding, to maintain a class action if the Rule's prerequisites are met. We cannot contort its text, even to avert a collision with state law that might render it invalid.

at 130 S.Ct. 1431, 1442 (their emphasis).

I don't read that as supremacy language, I read that as language emphasizing the difference between FRCP 23 and the state law.

[sherpaorlawschool]

Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

Assume that the event that happened was because of one of the products that the plant produced and it ended up injuring the plaintiff..not that something actually happened at the plant itself.

[sundance95]

Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

My understanding is that Perkins made clear that the substantial and continuous contacts are only satisfied by actual or de facto HQ level activity.

[ph14]

Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

Assume that the event that happened was because of one of the products that the plant produced and it ended up injuring the plaintiff..not that something actually happened at the plant itself.

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but I still think you need the long arm statute to authorize it if it's general jurisdiction (unless you are basing it on incorporation/PPB, in which case there is personal jurisdiction without the long arm statute), since you're pulling them out of state (since they are considered at home in the states of their Inc./PPB).

[ph14]

Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

My understanding is that Perkins made clear that the substantial and continuous contacts are only satisfied by actual or de facto HQ level activity.

I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

[ahduth]

Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state.

I stopped here. If the plaintiff sues in the state the plant is located in, they get them under presence, or Shoe, or whatever you want, don't they?

[Eugenie Danglars]

Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state.

I stopped here. If the plaintiff sues in the state the plant is located in, they get them under presence, or Shoe, or whatever you want, don't they?

It matters who specifically you're suing. It's usually easy to get jurisdiction over the company in these cases, but harder to get it over specific people/employees if they're not physically at that location. (I think it's Calder.)

[sundance95]

I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

I wouldn't argue that unless you didn't read Perkins in your class.

[ph14]

I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

I wouldn't argue that unless you didn't read Perkins in your class.

We didn't.

[Sandro]

Does everyone else have 5 or so people go to the bathroom / leave the classroom every exam ? I cant help but wonder how in preparing for a timed exam you couldnt do it before the exam. On closed notes tests it kind of seems odd, considering 1 minutes spent looking at your phone or something could really help......

Not that I'm accusing or think it actually happens. I just noticed it because the door would slam unbelievably loud each time. It just seems odd when 8 people go to the bathroom during a 2 hour exam. I can see towards the end if you're almost done/finished, but 30 minutes in ? okay......

[ahduth]

I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

I'll agree with this as to specific jurisdiction, as the inverse of Volkswagen - the car manufacturer had business presence in all 50 states, there was no reason to contest the Woodson filing. Does that really give them general jurisdictional presence though? I'm a little unclear on this (obviously).

[swissalps007]

Hey guys,
Got a quick question regarding Torts, specifically proving the element of breach. In doing my practice exams, I noticed I have some trouble in assessing when to use which rule. For example, are there certain red flags that should tell me this case calls for res ipsa rather than using the reasonable person standard, etc.? This is probably an easy question, but I am just getting stuck on it. My gut instinct is it depends on the fact pattern, but sometimes it's just not that clear.

Thanks

[sundance95]

How about Helicopteros?

[sherpaorlawschool]

Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

My understanding is that Perkins made clear that the substantial and continuous contacts are only satisfied by actual or de facto HQ level activity.

My only problem with Perkins is that the Goodyear case decided earlier this year stated that the paradigm is where the defendant is essentially at home but gives no more guidance than that. I suppose I should just take Ginsburg to mean that where a corporation is essentially at home is where inc./ppb.

[ahduth]

I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

I wouldn't argue that unless you didn't read Perkins in your class.

We didn't.

Ah, okay, you should read Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining (1952). Did you read Helicopteros or any of the general jurisdiction cases?

edit: I'm a just a tad bit behind sundance apparently lol.

[r6_philly]

If they have a plant in state, why doesn't P just use tag service to establish general jurisdiction? It's not like the plant is going anywhere.

[Eugenie Danglars]

Quick K's question: Under restatement § 159, a misrepresentation can theoretically be made in good faith, right?

[ahduth]

Quick K's question: Under restatement § 159, a misrepresentation can theoretically be made in good faith, right?

Per comment (a), you have to look to 162(1) to see if it's fraudulent. But it need not be fraudulent per 159.

Also how do you make that cool section mark?

[Eugenie Danglars]

Quick K's question: Under restatement § 159, a misrepresentation can theoretically be made in good faith, right?

Per comment (a), you have to look to 162(1) to see if it's fraudulent. But it need not be fraudulent per 159.

Also how do you make that cool section mark?

Ok, just checking. Thx.

I have a text expander on my computer, and I put it in there to autocorrect from "sec." But I originally got it from Word's special characters.

[paulinaporizkova]

If they have a plant in state, why doesn't P just use tag service to establish general jurisdiction? It's not like the plant is going anywhere.

tag jrx is harder to use against corporations because it isn't clear who you can serve and have it be proper

[Hannibal]

Quick K's question: Under restatement § 159, a misrepresentation can theoretically be made in good faith, right?

Per comment (a), you have to look to 162(1) to see if it's fraudulent. But it need not be fraudulent per 159.

Also how do you make that cool section mark?

Option 6 if you're on a mac bro.