Nat Law Supplemental Quizzes |
Questions and Correct Answers
(Verified Answers) | Latest Update
2026/27 | Already Graded A+
Question 1 -Erie-Intermediate
A restaurant owner in State A bought large freezers from a manufacturer of
commercial refrigeration equipment with its principal place of business in State B.
Within one week and after being fully stocked with meat, one of the freezers
broke down. The restaurant owner filed a state-based products liability action
against the manufacturer in federal court in State A, and included a demand for a
jury trial. Under the law in State A, jury verdicts do not need to be unanimous, but
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require jury verdicts to be unanimous. At trial,
the restaurant owner makes a motion asking the court to apply the State A law.
How should the court rule on the motion?
A Grant the motion, because applying the federal rule may change the outcome of
the case.
B Grant the motion, because, when a federal court has diversity jurisdiction, it is
required to apply the substantive - ANSWERS (C) The court should deny the
motion. Under the Erie doctrine, when a state law-based claim is brought in
federal court based on diversity of citizenship, the federal court generally applies
the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting. However, where a specific
federal statute or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are on point, the federal
court must apply federal procedural law as long as the federal rule is valid. Under
the Rules Enabling Act, a Federal Rule is valid if it deals with "practice or
,procedure" and does not "abridge, enlarge, or modify" a substantive right. Here,
there is a specific federal procedural rule that is on point (Fed. R. Civ. P. 481, which
requires jury verdicts to be unanimous, unless the parties agree otherwise. Since
there is no evidence of agreement, the federal procedural rule will apply, and the
motion should be denied.
(A) is wrong because it states the wrong conclusion, and it incorrectly cites the
"outcome determinative" test. This is the test that may be applied when there is
no federal procedure law on point, and it is unclear whether the state matter is
substantive or procedural. As stated above, there is a federal procedural rule on
point. Therefore, this test does not apply. Similarly, (D) is wrong because it is
referring to the balance of interests test, which is another test that may be applied
when there is no federal procedural law on point, and it is unclear whether the
state matter is substantive or procedural. This test is not applicable here, however,
because there is a federal procedural rule on point.
(B) is wrong because, although it is a true statement of law that a federal court
with diversity jurisdiction is required to apply the substantive law of the state in
which it is sitting, the requirements for a jury verdict is a procedural rule, not a
sub
Question 2- Erie- Intermediate
A patient filed a malpractice claim against a doctor in a federal court in State A. A
State A state statute bars introduction of evidence concerning plaintiff behaviors
in medical malpractice cases. The statute was enacted with the policy goal of
ensuring that recoveries against negligent doctors would not be reduced due to
plaintiff negligence. While there is no federal statute or rule that specifically
addresses this situation, federal judges generally admit relevant evidence. At trial,
the doctor wants to present evidence that the patient's obsessive exercise routine
contributed to stitches
,popping, which would be relevant to negate his claim.
How will the court likely rule as to the admissibility of the evidence?
A Admit the evidence, because the admission of evidence is a procedural issue
rather than a
substantive issue.
B Admit the evidence, because the admission of evidence - ANSWERS (D) The
court should not admit the evidence. This situation highlights the Erie doctrine,
which requires federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply the
substantive law of the state, and federal procedural law. The initial issue is
whether there is a federal law on point, because, if so, that law should govern if it
is "arguably procedural." The facts state that there is no federal statute, rule, or
law on point; accordingly, (B) is incorrect because the "arguably procedural test"
does not apply. Thereafter, simply considering whether the state evidentiary
statute is procedural or substantive is not adequate because that is not the
complete test.
Accordingly, choices (A) and (C) are both incorrect in focusing only on whether the
evidence is substantive or procedural. When there is no federal statute or rule on
point, the Court has used various tests at different times. Here, the outcome
determination test would likely mean that the federal court would apply the state
standard and not admit the evidence.
Question 3-Supplemental Jurisdiction - Intermediate
A corporation manufactured a patented automatic potato peeler. Subsequently,
that corporation's biggest rival manufactured a similar potato peeler. Both are
corporations of the same state. The state has a unique statute authorizing
, quadruple damages for unfair business competition relating to potatoes; however,
there is considerable debate whether the law is constitutional under the state
constitution. The corporation holding the patent sued its rival in federal court,
alleging that the rival corporation violated its patent and the unfair business law.
Shortly after the pretrial meeting of the parties required under the Federal Rules,
the two companies reached a settlement of the patent infringement claim.
May the court dismiss the remaining claim?
A No, because the federal court still has supplemental jurisdiction over the case.
B No, because the federal court - ANSWERS (D) The court may dismiss the
remaining claim. The court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction
on one of four bases: (i) the case presents a novel or complex issue of state law;
(ii) in a federal question case, the nonfederal claim substantially predominates the
case; (iii) the claims over which the federal court had original jurisdiction have
been dismissed (taking into consideration the amount of time the court has spent
on the case); or (iv) there are extraordinary
circumstances for declining jurisdiction. Here, bases (i) and (ii) above would apply.
(A) is incorrect, because the court may dismiss the case even if it still has subject
matter jurisdiction, as discussed above.
(B) is an incorrect statement of law.
(C) is incorrect. The patent claim raised a federal question and provided the court
with federal question jurisdiction, and the claim based on the unfair business
competition statute arose from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal
claim.
Questions and Correct Answers
(Verified Answers) | Latest Update
2026/27 | Already Graded A+
Question 1 -Erie-Intermediate
A restaurant owner in State A bought large freezers from a manufacturer of
commercial refrigeration equipment with its principal place of business in State B.
Within one week and after being fully stocked with meat, one of the freezers
broke down. The restaurant owner filed a state-based products liability action
against the manufacturer in federal court in State A, and included a demand for a
jury trial. Under the law in State A, jury verdicts do not need to be unanimous, but
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require jury verdicts to be unanimous. At trial,
the restaurant owner makes a motion asking the court to apply the State A law.
How should the court rule on the motion?
A Grant the motion, because applying the federal rule may change the outcome of
the case.
B Grant the motion, because, when a federal court has diversity jurisdiction, it is
required to apply the substantive - ANSWERS (C) The court should deny the
motion. Under the Erie doctrine, when a state law-based claim is brought in
federal court based on diversity of citizenship, the federal court generally applies
the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting. However, where a specific
federal statute or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are on point, the federal
court must apply federal procedural law as long as the federal rule is valid. Under
the Rules Enabling Act, a Federal Rule is valid if it deals with "practice or
,procedure" and does not "abridge, enlarge, or modify" a substantive right. Here,
there is a specific federal procedural rule that is on point (Fed. R. Civ. P. 481, which
requires jury verdicts to be unanimous, unless the parties agree otherwise. Since
there is no evidence of agreement, the federal procedural rule will apply, and the
motion should be denied.
(A) is wrong because it states the wrong conclusion, and it incorrectly cites the
"outcome determinative" test. This is the test that may be applied when there is
no federal procedure law on point, and it is unclear whether the state matter is
substantive or procedural. As stated above, there is a federal procedural rule on
point. Therefore, this test does not apply. Similarly, (D) is wrong because it is
referring to the balance of interests test, which is another test that may be applied
when there is no federal procedural law on point, and it is unclear whether the
state matter is substantive or procedural. This test is not applicable here, however,
because there is a federal procedural rule on point.
(B) is wrong because, although it is a true statement of law that a federal court
with diversity jurisdiction is required to apply the substantive law of the state in
which it is sitting, the requirements for a jury verdict is a procedural rule, not a
sub
Question 2- Erie- Intermediate
A patient filed a malpractice claim against a doctor in a federal court in State A. A
State A state statute bars introduction of evidence concerning plaintiff behaviors
in medical malpractice cases. The statute was enacted with the policy goal of
ensuring that recoveries against negligent doctors would not be reduced due to
plaintiff negligence. While there is no federal statute or rule that specifically
addresses this situation, federal judges generally admit relevant evidence. At trial,
the doctor wants to present evidence that the patient's obsessive exercise routine
contributed to stitches
,popping, which would be relevant to negate his claim.
How will the court likely rule as to the admissibility of the evidence?
A Admit the evidence, because the admission of evidence is a procedural issue
rather than a
substantive issue.
B Admit the evidence, because the admission of evidence - ANSWERS (D) The
court should not admit the evidence. This situation highlights the Erie doctrine,
which requires federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply the
substantive law of the state, and federal procedural law. The initial issue is
whether there is a federal law on point, because, if so, that law should govern if it
is "arguably procedural." The facts state that there is no federal statute, rule, or
law on point; accordingly, (B) is incorrect because the "arguably procedural test"
does not apply. Thereafter, simply considering whether the state evidentiary
statute is procedural or substantive is not adequate because that is not the
complete test.
Accordingly, choices (A) and (C) are both incorrect in focusing only on whether the
evidence is substantive or procedural. When there is no federal statute or rule on
point, the Court has used various tests at different times. Here, the outcome
determination test would likely mean that the federal court would apply the state
standard and not admit the evidence.
Question 3-Supplemental Jurisdiction - Intermediate
A corporation manufactured a patented automatic potato peeler. Subsequently,
that corporation's biggest rival manufactured a similar potato peeler. Both are
corporations of the same state. The state has a unique statute authorizing
, quadruple damages for unfair business competition relating to potatoes; however,
there is considerable debate whether the law is constitutional under the state
constitution. The corporation holding the patent sued its rival in federal court,
alleging that the rival corporation violated its patent and the unfair business law.
Shortly after the pretrial meeting of the parties required under the Federal Rules,
the two companies reached a settlement of the patent infringement claim.
May the court dismiss the remaining claim?
A No, because the federal court still has supplemental jurisdiction over the case.
B No, because the federal court - ANSWERS (D) The court may dismiss the
remaining claim. The court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction
on one of four bases: (i) the case presents a novel or complex issue of state law;
(ii) in a federal question case, the nonfederal claim substantially predominates the
case; (iii) the claims over which the federal court had original jurisdiction have
been dismissed (taking into consideration the amount of time the court has spent
on the case); or (iv) there are extraordinary
circumstances for declining jurisdiction. Here, bases (i) and (ii) above would apply.
(A) is incorrect, because the court may dismiss the case even if it still has subject
matter jurisdiction, as discussed above.
(B) is an incorrect statement of law.
(C) is incorrect. The patent claim raised a federal question and provided the court
with federal question jurisdiction, and the claim based on the unfair business
competition statute arose from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal
claim.
