Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The concept of fairness for the exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant is the core concept.

What are the two types of personal jurisdiction?

Which of these is NOT a factor considered in fairness when determining whether personal jurisdiction is reasonable?

What is the primary purpose of a long-arm statute?

Under the minimum contacts test, what are the two main factors to consider when deciding if personal jurisdiction is appropriate?

A defendant's level of purposeful availment is considered when evaluating both general and specific personal jurisdiction.

A defendant who is 'at home' in the forum state can be sued there for any claim, even if it arises outside the state.

The stream of commerce test is a method for establishing general personal jurisdiction.

When evaluating foreseeability in determining personal jurisdiction, a defendant merely needs to be aware that being sued in a specific state was possible.

A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant based solely on the quality of their contacts with the forum state, even if they are not sufficiently related to the plaintiff's claim.

Which of the following is NOT a factor considered when determining whether a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair?

A defendant can waive personal jurisdiction even if they would not otherwise be subject to it.

A defendant can only challenge a lack of personal jurisdiction by filing a motion to dismiss.

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to hear a particular type of case.

Federal courts have unlimited subject matter jurisdiction.

Which of the following is NOT a type of subject matter jurisdiction?

Under federal question jurisdiction, what must the plaintiff's claim clearly raise?

The Mottley case established that a federal question cannot arise out of a predicted defense or counterclaim.

A substantial federal issue always requires resolution of a major issue of federal law.

Diversity jurisdiction is the primary basis for federal court jurisdiction over cases involving claims arising under state law.

Complete diversity requires that no plaintiff and defendant share the same citizenship.

A plaintiff's citizenship is determined at the time they file their lawsuit.

A person's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction is determined by their residence, regardless of their intent to remain.

A corporation's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes is limited to the state of incorporation.

Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear claims that are not independently based on federal question or diversity jurisdiction, as long as they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as a claim that does have federal jurisdiction.

Removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a case from state court to federal court, as long as the case could have been originally filed in federal court.

A defendant can only remove a case to federal court if it involves a federal question, not diversity jurisdiction.

A plaintiff can always challenge subject matter jurisdiction by filing a motion to dismiss.

The Erie Doctrine primarily applies to cases involving federal question jurisdiction.

Federal courts generally apply state substantive law in diversity cases.

Procedural law dictates how a case will be interpreted, while substantive law dictates how the case will be heard.

The Erie Doctrine applies to cases involving the following: international relations, admiralty and maritime claims, and federal questions.

The guided Erie track applies when there is a direct conflict between federal and state law, while the unguided Erie track applies when there is no clear conflict or doubt.

Which of the following is a key consideration in the outcome determinative test under the Erie Doctrine?

What are the two prongs of the twin aims of Erie, which guide federal courts when applying state law?

Venue is primarily about the geographic location of a lawsuit.

A plaintiff can only bring a case in a district where the defendant resides.

Convenience is the main factor considered when determining the most appropriate venue.

A corporation can be sued in any federal district where it has a registered agent.

A defendant can only waive venue if they consent to it in writing.

Forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case if there is a more convenient forum for the lawsuit, even if the court has proper personal jurisdiction over the parties.

Service of process involves the delivery of a summons and a complaint to the defendant.

Actual notice, where the defendant receives direct personal service of process, is always the only acceptable method of service.

The Sniadach case established that the government can never deprive a person of property without due process of law.

Which of the following is NOT a factor considered in the Matthew's balancing test for evaluating due process?

A complaint is the initial pleading filed by the plaintiff, outlining the case.

The Twombly and Iqbal cases established the plausibility standard for pleading.

The Swanson case established the requirement for pleading facts with particularity in cases involving fraud.

A defendant's answer can only admit, deny, or assert a counterclaim.

A plaintiff can only amend their complaint once.

Rule 11 sanctions are intended to punish parties who bring frivolous claims.

The Zielinski case demonstrates that defendants are never held liable for mistakes made by the plaintiff in naming the wrong defendant, even if the right defendant had reason to know about the lawsuit.

The Ingraham case stands for the principle that defendants cannot introduce unexpected defenses in their answer, and they must raise all possible defenses in their initial pleading.

The Kraemer case demonstrates that attorneys are always subject to sanctions if their conduct in filing a lawsuit is later deemed sanctionable after discovery.

The King case highlights the importance of carefully researching and scrutinizing any allegations before filing a lawsuit, to avoid sanctionable actions.

Joinder allows parties to join two or more claims or parties together in a lawsuit.

A counterclaim is considered compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim, meaning it must always be asserted, or else the defendant waives the right to bring it later.

A permissive counterclaim allows the defendant to bring any claim against the plaintiff, even if it's unrelated to the main claim.

A cross-claim is a claim brought by one defendant against another defendant in the same lawsuit, but only if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence.

A plaintiff can only join another plaintiff if they are both involved in the same transaction.

Compulsory joinder requires a plaintiff to join any necessary or indispensable party to the lawsuit.

The Temple case demonstrates that a court must always proceed with a lawsuit, even if a necessary party cannot be joined.

Impleader allows a defendant to bring in a third party who may be liable to the defendant, but not to the plaintiff.

Impleader is generally used when the defendant seeks to recover money from the third party.

Intervention allows a third party to join a lawsuit as a plaintiff, claiming that they have a legal interest that will be harmed if they are not joined.

Interpleader allows a plaintiff to deposit a fund or asset with the court, which is then distributed to the rightful claimants.

Rule 42 allows courts to separate a lawsuit into multiple trials, if it becomes too confusing to handle them at once.

Discovery is the process where parties exchange information to prepare for trial.

The work product doctrine only applies to materials prepared by the client.

The Hickman case demonstrates that an attorney's mental impressions are never discoverable under the work product doctrine.

The Upjohn case established that the work product doctrine does not protect materials prepared by employees of a corporation, only those prepared by the corporation's officers.

A party can only seek discovery of materials that are relevant to the claims or defenses in the lawsuit.

A court will always compel discovery, as long as the information requested is proportional to the needs of the case.

A protective order prevents the disclosure of otherwise discoverable information, to protect a party from harm.