Michael Green's CivPro Blog

Essay Question from the 2010 Civ Pro Exam

Essay Question 4.

P (a citizen of New York) sued D (a citizen of Connecticut) in the Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut under Connecticut law for negligence in connection with a car accident that occurred in Connecticut. P asked for $200,000 in damages. In his answer, D admitted P's damages and admitted that if he had been negligent, P's damages would be have been caused by this negligence. But D denied that he was negligent.  After discovery, P moved for summary judgment, offering in support of his motion an affidavit from a witness who stated that she saw D texting at the time of the accident. D offered no evidence in opposition to the motion. Texting while driving is a violation of Connecticut traffic regulations. Furthermore, under Connecticut law, if the defendant is found to have violated the texting regulation, there is a presumption of negligence that can be overcome only through the introduction of contrary evidence by the defendant. Under Connecticut law, however, a jury is not required to accept the testimony of a witness, even if the witness is disinterested, uncontradicted, and unimpeached. In the case of Jones v. Smith, however, a federal court in Connecticut held (in the context of a federal civil rights action) that the testimony of a disinterested, uncontradicted, and unimpeached witness must be accepted by a jury. Jones v. Smith was affirmed by the First Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to grant cert. How should the federal court decide P's motion for summary judgment?

Essay Question from the 2010 CivPro Exam

Essay Question 5.  

Recently, a driver in a three-car accident in Tennessee was found not negligent in a suit brought in Tennessee state court by a driver of one of the other cars, and then found negligent in a suit brought in Tennessee state court by the driver of the other car. In response to what it saw as fundamental unfairness to defendants, the Tennessee state legislature passed a statute demanding that all those involved in a car accident be joined as a party (provided that jurisdiction over the party can be obtained) in order to state a claim for negligence under Tennessee law. The statute specified that the joinder requirement is an element of a negligence action under Tennessee law – it does not apply to actions brought in Tennessee state court under the negligence law of other states.

P (a citizen of New York) got into a three-car accident with D (a citizen of Tennessee) and X (a citizen of Kentucky) in Tennessee. P sued D for $100,000 under Tennessee negligence law in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Although personal jurisdiction over X could have been obtained, and joinder of X would not have stripped the court of subject matter jurisdiction or deprived it of venue, P did not join X. D made a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. How should the court decide D's motion?

Multiple Choice Question from 2010 Civ Pro Exam

Question 7)     P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court under state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. Which of the following is most accurate? (Do not consider whether there is subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or venue for any action.)

a.         D may, but does not have to, join a state law negligence action against X for the damages that X caused D from the accident.

b.         D may, but does not have to, join a state law negligence action against P for the damages that P caused D from the accident.

c.         P may, but does not have to, join a negligence action against Z for the damages that Z caused P concerning an accident that P and Z got into the day after the accident between P, D, and X.

d.         If D believes that X will be liable to D under contribution for all or part of D’s liability to P, D must join this contribution action against X.

e.         Assume D brings the contribution action in d. above against X. P may, but does not have to, join a state law negligence action against X for the damages that X caused P from the accident.

Multiple Choice Question from 2010 Civ Pro Exam

Question 5)     Congress is considering passing a statute to protect First Amendment rights by allowing either the plaintiff or the defendant to removal to federal district court any state law defamation or libel action brought in state court, regardless of the citizenship of the parties, if the defendant challenges the constitutionality of the state law under the First Amendment. Which of the following is most accurate? 

a.         The statute is constitutional.

b.         The statute is unconstitutional because federal defenses do not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

c.         The statute is unconstitutional because in-state defendants may not remove.

d.         The statute is unconstitutional because it is not arguably procedural.

e.         The statute is unconstitutional because it abridges, enlarges, or modifies substantive rights.

Erie Essay Question from the 2003 Exam

I'm back to posting Civ Pro exam questions with answers, although at a slower place than  before. All of the posted questions are available in the Old Civil Procedure Exams category (to the right on this blog).

Essay Question 1.

E (an employee of the P Corp.), D and X are in a three-car accident in northern Alabama. The P Corp. (which is incorporated in Alabama) sues D, a citizen of Georgia, under Alabama negligence law for the $100,000 in damages that, it claims, D’s negligence caused its truck and contents. The P Corp.’s suit against D is in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D makes a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the ground that the P Corp.’s principal place of business is Georgia. Evidence is submitted by each side and the federal court in Georgia finds that the P Corp. does indeed have its principal place of business in Georgia. The court dismisses the case. A few days after the dismissal, the P Corp. brings suit against X (also a Georgia citizen), under Alabama negligence law, in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The P Corp.’s suit is for the $100,000 in damages that, it claims, X’s negligence caused its truck and contents. X makes a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the P Corp.’s principal place of business is Georgia. Furthermore, X argues, the P Corp. is issue precluded from relitigating its principal place of business because of the earlier litigation of that issue in Georgia. The P Corp. denies that its principal place of business is Georgia and denies that it can be precluded by X from relitigating this issue. Under Alabama law, non-mutual issue preclusion is allowed. Under Georgia law, however, issue preclusion requires mutuality. Is the P Corp. issue precluded from relitigating its principal place of business or not? Why? [30 points]

Whew

Starting to recover from ill-advised Erieblogging. Will start posting again soon.