CIVIL PROCEDURE STUDY GUIDE QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS FOR EXAM PREP. PREVIEWED AND
UPDATED F0R 2024
1. Standards of Review used by Appellate Court: Review of
discretionary rulings—abuse of discretion =A court's determination
of the admissibility of evidence is within the court's discretion and is
subject to review under the abuse of discretion standard.
Review of a trial court's factual findings—clearly erroneous=
"clearly erroneous" standard of review applies to a trial court's
findings of fact, not to the trial court's ruling on the admissibility
of evidence.
Review of legal rulings—de novo = While an appellate court relies on
the record created in a trial court and does not entertain the
admission of additional evidence, the appellate court reviews the
evidence and law without deference to the trial court's legal rulings.
Thus, the appellate court may reach its own independent
conclusions as to the applicable law.
preponderance of the evidence is the burden of persuasion that a
party who offers evidence must bear in convincing a trial judge
regarding preliminary questions, such as the admissibility of
evidence.
2. Erie Doctrine: A federal court with diversity jurisdiction over an
action must apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the state in which it sits.
although a federal court generally is required to apply the substantive
law of the state in which the federal court sits, since conflict-of-law rules
are substantive, a state court in the same state as the federal court
would apply the negligence law of the neighboring state in deciding this
action.
3. A plaintiff brought a negligence action in federal court to
recover damages for injuries suffered as an audience member at
,an event held by the defendant. The defendant was a citizen of
the forum state; the plaintiff was a citizen of the neighboring
state in which the event was held. Under the forum state's
choice-of-law rules, the negligence law of the neighboring state
applied to this action. Under the negligence law of the
neighboring state, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.
Under the negligence law of the forum state, the defendant did
not owe a duty to the plaintiff. Which law should the court apply
in deciding this action?
Answer Choices: The negligence law of the forum state, because
that is the law of the state in which the federal court sits. The
negligence law of the forum state, because choice-of-law rules
are procedural rules. The negligence law of the neighboring
state, because of the forum state's choice-of-law rules. The
negligence law of the neighboring state, because the plaintiff is a
citizen of this
1/
state.: Answer choice C is correct. A federal court with diversity
jurisdiction over an action must apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the
state in which it sits. Consequently, the court should apply the
negligence law of the neighboring state in determining the defendant's
duty to the plaintiff since this is the law that a state court in the same
state as the federal court would apply in determining this action. Answer
choice A is incorrect because, although a federal court generally is
required to apply the substantive law of the state in which the federal
court sits, since conflict-of-law rules are substantive, a state court in the
same state as the federal court would apply the negligence law of the
neighboring state in deciding this action. Consequently, the federal court
must do the same. Answer choice B is incorrect because choice-of-law
rules are substantive, not procedural. Answer choice D is incorrect
because, in determining the applicable law that a federal court sitting in
diversity must apply, the state citizenship of the plaintiff is irrelevant.
, CIVIL PROCEDURE STUDY GUIDE QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS FOR EXAM PREP. PREVIEWED AND
UPDATED F0R 2024
4. Personal Jurisdiction waiver: Under Rule 12(b), the defense of
lack of jurisdiction over the person must be asserted in a responsive
pleading or by motion before a responsive pleading is submitted. A
failure to object in accordance with Rule 12 waives the objection;
5. Grounds for a new trial: Under Rule 59(a), the court may, on
motion by a party or on its own, grant a new trial on all issues or with
respect to only certain issues or parties. Rule 59 does not specifically list
the grounds that will justify a new trial, but in practice, the overarching
theme is that the court may grant a new trial to prevent a miscarriage of
justice. Some of the reasons that have been held to justify a new trial
include
i) Error at trial that renders the judgment unfair; ii) Newly discovered
evidence that existed at the time of the trial was excusably
overlooked and would likely have altered the outcome of the trial; iii)
Prejudicial misconduct of counsel, a party, the judge, or a juror; iv) A
verdict that is against the clear weight of the evidence;
v) A verdict that is based on false
evidence; or vi) A verdict that is
excessive or inadequate.
In general, whether a new trial is warranted rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 31 1
U.S. 243 (1940). Under Rule61, the court must disregard all errors and
defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights. This is the
"harmless error" rule.
After giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court
may grant a timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in a
party's motion. The court
2/
must specify the reasons in its order.
, If the court determines that a verdict was excessive, then it may offer a
reduction of the verdict, known as a remittitur, and grant a new trial on
the condition that the remittitur is not accepted. See Hetzel v. Prince
William County., 523 U.S. 208 (1998). If the court determines that the
verdict was inadequate, then it only has the option of ordering a new
trial. An additur (enhanced judgment) is not permitted.
6. Proper Venue: In general, venue in a federal civil action is
proper in (i) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located;
or (ii) a judicial district in which a "substantial part of the events or
omissions" on which the claim is based occurred, or where a
"substantial part of the property" that is the subject of the action is
located. A defendant that is an entity with the capacity to sue and be
sued, regardless of whether incorporated, is deemed to reside in any
judicial district in which the entity is subject to personal jurisdiction
with respect to the civil action in question.
7. Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata): Three requirements:
1) The same plaintiff and the same defendant from lawsuit #1;
2) Lawsuit #1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits; and
3) Claimant is asserting the same claim as in Lawsuit #1
A voluntary dismissal "with prejudice" is treated as a judgment on the
merits and will have a preclusive effect in the court that issued the order
of dismissal. A dismissal on the merits under Rule 41 (b) will bar a
plaintiff from refiling the claim only in the same federal court, not in
state court.
Unless otherwise provided by the order of dismissal, an involuntary
dismissal on non-jurisdictional grounds will constitute an adjudication
on the merits. Rule 41 (b). While such an involuntary dismissal bar
refiling of the claim in the same federal court, it does not preclude
refiling of the claim in state court.
AND ANSWERS FOR EXAM PREP. PREVIEWED AND
UPDATED F0R 2024
1. Standards of Review used by Appellate Court: Review of
discretionary rulings—abuse of discretion =A court's determination
of the admissibility of evidence is within the court's discretion and is
subject to review under the abuse of discretion standard.
Review of a trial court's factual findings—clearly erroneous=
"clearly erroneous" standard of review applies to a trial court's
findings of fact, not to the trial court's ruling on the admissibility
of evidence.
Review of legal rulings—de novo = While an appellate court relies on
the record created in a trial court and does not entertain the
admission of additional evidence, the appellate court reviews the
evidence and law without deference to the trial court's legal rulings.
Thus, the appellate court may reach its own independent
conclusions as to the applicable law.
preponderance of the evidence is the burden of persuasion that a
party who offers evidence must bear in convincing a trial judge
regarding preliminary questions, such as the admissibility of
evidence.
2. Erie Doctrine: A federal court with diversity jurisdiction over an
action must apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the state in which it sits.
although a federal court generally is required to apply the substantive
law of the state in which the federal court sits, since conflict-of-law rules
are substantive, a state court in the same state as the federal court
would apply the negligence law of the neighboring state in deciding this
action.
3. A plaintiff brought a negligence action in federal court to
recover damages for injuries suffered as an audience member at
,an event held by the defendant. The defendant was a citizen of
the forum state; the plaintiff was a citizen of the neighboring
state in which the event was held. Under the forum state's
choice-of-law rules, the negligence law of the neighboring state
applied to this action. Under the negligence law of the
neighboring state, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.
Under the negligence law of the forum state, the defendant did
not owe a duty to the plaintiff. Which law should the court apply
in deciding this action?
Answer Choices: The negligence law of the forum state, because
that is the law of the state in which the federal court sits. The
negligence law of the forum state, because choice-of-law rules
are procedural rules. The negligence law of the neighboring
state, because of the forum state's choice-of-law rules. The
negligence law of the neighboring state, because the plaintiff is a
citizen of this
1/
state.: Answer choice C is correct. A federal court with diversity
jurisdiction over an action must apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the
state in which it sits. Consequently, the court should apply the
negligence law of the neighboring state in determining the defendant's
duty to the plaintiff since this is the law that a state court in the same
state as the federal court would apply in determining this action. Answer
choice A is incorrect because, although a federal court generally is
required to apply the substantive law of the state in which the federal
court sits, since conflict-of-law rules are substantive, a state court in the
same state as the federal court would apply the negligence law of the
neighboring state in deciding this action. Consequently, the federal court
must do the same. Answer choice B is incorrect because choice-of-law
rules are substantive, not procedural. Answer choice D is incorrect
because, in determining the applicable law that a federal court sitting in
diversity must apply, the state citizenship of the plaintiff is irrelevant.
, CIVIL PROCEDURE STUDY GUIDE QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS FOR EXAM PREP. PREVIEWED AND
UPDATED F0R 2024
4. Personal Jurisdiction waiver: Under Rule 12(b), the defense of
lack of jurisdiction over the person must be asserted in a responsive
pleading or by motion before a responsive pleading is submitted. A
failure to object in accordance with Rule 12 waives the objection;
5. Grounds for a new trial: Under Rule 59(a), the court may, on
motion by a party or on its own, grant a new trial on all issues or with
respect to only certain issues or parties. Rule 59 does not specifically list
the grounds that will justify a new trial, but in practice, the overarching
theme is that the court may grant a new trial to prevent a miscarriage of
justice. Some of the reasons that have been held to justify a new trial
include
i) Error at trial that renders the judgment unfair; ii) Newly discovered
evidence that existed at the time of the trial was excusably
overlooked and would likely have altered the outcome of the trial; iii)
Prejudicial misconduct of counsel, a party, the judge, or a juror; iv) A
verdict that is against the clear weight of the evidence;
v) A verdict that is based on false
evidence; or vi) A verdict that is
excessive or inadequate.
In general, whether a new trial is warranted rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 31 1
U.S. 243 (1940). Under Rule61, the court must disregard all errors and
defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights. This is the
"harmless error" rule.
After giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court
may grant a timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in a
party's motion. The court
2/
must specify the reasons in its order.
, If the court determines that a verdict was excessive, then it may offer a
reduction of the verdict, known as a remittitur, and grant a new trial on
the condition that the remittitur is not accepted. See Hetzel v. Prince
William County., 523 U.S. 208 (1998). If the court determines that the
verdict was inadequate, then it only has the option of ordering a new
trial. An additur (enhanced judgment) is not permitted.
6. Proper Venue: In general, venue in a federal civil action is
proper in (i) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located;
or (ii) a judicial district in which a "substantial part of the events or
omissions" on which the claim is based occurred, or where a
"substantial part of the property" that is the subject of the action is
located. A defendant that is an entity with the capacity to sue and be
sued, regardless of whether incorporated, is deemed to reside in any
judicial district in which the entity is subject to personal jurisdiction
with respect to the civil action in question.
7. Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata): Three requirements:
1) The same plaintiff and the same defendant from lawsuit #1;
2) Lawsuit #1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits; and
3) Claimant is asserting the same claim as in Lawsuit #1
A voluntary dismissal "with prejudice" is treated as a judgment on the
merits and will have a preclusive effect in the court that issued the order
of dismissal. A dismissal on the merits under Rule 41 (b) will bar a
plaintiff from refiling the claim only in the same federal court, not in
state court.
Unless otherwise provided by the order of dismissal, an involuntary
dismissal on non-jurisdictional grounds will constitute an adjudication
on the merits. Rule 41 (b). While such an involuntary dismissal bar
refiling of the claim in the same federal court, it does not preclude
refiling of the claim in state court.
