Question: A judge issues a preliminary injunction against a company for environmental violations. The order does not describe the specific acts restrained but references the complaint filed by the plaintiffs. Is this order compliant with Rule 1?

Answer: No. The order is not compliant with Rule 1 because it must describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained or required and may not reference the complaint or other documents.


Question: Can a temporary restraining order be issued without notifying the party to be enjoined?

Answer: Yes. If the moving party submits an affidavit certifying the reasonable efforts made to give notice.


Question: What must every order granting a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order include?

Answer: Every order must (1) state the reasons why it was issued; (2) state its terms specifically; and (3) describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained or required.


Question: A plaintiff was granted a temporary restraining order without notifying the defendant. The plaintiff then moves for an extension of the TRO because the key witness is on vacation and cannot testify on the hearing date. Will the court likely grant the extension?

Answer: No. The court will not likely grant the extension because the unavailability of a witness due to a planned vacation is not considered good cause for extending a temporary restraining order.


Question: What is required for a judicial extension of a temporary restraining order?

Answer: A party must move for the extension within the time limitation of the original order and show good cause for the extension.


Question: What might constitute good cause for extending a temporary restraining order?

Answer: Good cause might be a continuation of the circumstances of irreparable injury that justified the original order or new circumstances produced by the temporary restraining order.


Question: A temporary restraining order was issued without notice to the adverse party and has been extended once for 14 days. Can it be extended for another 14 days without being treated as a preliminary injunction?

Answer: No, if a temporary restraining order is extended for a period longer than 28 days, it is treated as a preliminary injunction and is appealable.


Question: How long can a temporary restraining order issued without notice to the adverse party last?

Answer: It lasts 14 days, with a possible single 14-day extension for a total of 28 days.


Question: What happens if a temporary restraining order is extended for longer than 28 days?

Answer: It is treated as a preliminary injunction and is appealable.


Question: In a federal diversity case, a party argues that the burden of persuasion should follow federal law because it involves pleading standards. Should the federal court follow federal or state law in this matter?

Answer: The federal court should follow state substantive law and federal procedural law. Since the burden of persuasion involves basic policy considerations regarding the substance of the case, the federal court must apply the state law as would the highest court in the state.


Question: What law does a federal court follow in a diversity case?

Answer: The court will generally follow state substantive law and federal procedural law.


Question: A plaintiff amends the complaint to add a new party due to initially suing the wrong party by mistake. The proper party learns of the suit within the 120-day period and realizes it was meant to be the defendant. Will the amendment relate back?

Answer: Yes. The amendment will relate back because the proper party learned of the suit within the 120-day period for service of the complaint and realized that it was actually meant to be the defendant due to the plaintiff's mistake about the identity of the proper party.


Question: When do amendments to change factual or legal allegations relate back?

Answer: They relate back as long as the new allegations arise from the same litigation events as the original pleadings.


Question: When will an amendment to add a new party relate back?

Answer: It will relate back only if the plaintiff sued the wrong party due to a mistake about the identity of the proper party and the proper party learns of the suit within the 120-day period for service of the complaint and realizes that it was actually meant to be the defendant.


Question: A complaint details an accident where the plaintiff was hit by the defendant, providing the date, place, and resulting injuries. The defendant files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Will the complaint likely survive the motion?

Answer: Yes. The complaint will likely survive the motion to dismiss because it contains sufficient factual content to state a plausible negligence claim, giving the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.


Question: What constitutes a factually plausible claim?

Answer: A claim is factually plausible when the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.


Question: What must a complaint contain to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?

Answer: It must contain sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.


Question: How can a party secure the right to a jury trial?

Answer: A jury trial demand may be included in a pleading and including it in a properly filed and served complaint secures the right.


Question: An attorney files a complaint claiming breach of contract based solely on the client's verbal statement without further investigation. Is this compliant with Rule 11?

Answer: No. This is not compliant with Rule 11 because the attorney must reasonably investigate whether there was a contract, whether it was breached, and whether it caused damage. Rule 11 requires a reasonable pre-filing inquiry.


Question: What does FRCP Rule 11 prohibit?

Answer: It prohibits filing papers that make allegations and other factual contentions that lack evidentiary support unless the allegation is specifically identified as likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.


Question: When may attorneys rely on affidavits and documents provided by their clients?

Answer: Attorneys may rely on them unless the circumstances suggest that it would be unreasonable to do so or that further inquiry is needed.


Question: Under FRCP Rule 11, who may be sanctioned for making frivolous legal arguments?

Answer: A represented party may be sanctioned for anything except a frivolous legal argument; monetary sanctions for frivolous legal claims are issued against the lawyer, not the represented party.


Question: An attorney files a motion for sanctions against the opposing party without serving the motion first. Is this compliant with Rule 10?

Answer: No. This is not compliant with Rule 10. The motion for sanctions must first be served on the opposing party, who then gets a 21-day 'safe-harbor' period to withdraw or correct any bad pleading.


Question: What must happen before a motion for sanctions is filed with the court?

Answer: The motion must first be served on the opposing party, and the offending party gets a 21-day 'safe-harbor' period to withdraw or correct any bad pleading.


Question: Can a crossclaim be solely an assertion of a defense?

Answer: No. A crossclaim must be a claim for relief and cannot be solely an assertion of a defense.


Question: Dave files a crossclaim against Doug which only asserts a defense. Is this crossclaim proper?

Answer: No. The crossclaim is improper because it is not a claim for relief.


Question: When is a crossclaim by one party against a co-party allowed?

Answer: A crossclaim is allowed if the claim is closely (transactionally) related to at least one claim in the action and is sufficient for relief with its own damages.


Question: In a tort action against D, the defendant wants to bring a breach of contract claim that stems from the same transaction as the tort action. Is this breach of contract claim compulsory?

Answer: Yes. The breach of contract claim is a compulsory counterclaim to the tort action because it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence.


Question: What happens if a party fails to plead a compulsory counterclaim?

Answer: If a party fails to plead a compulsory counterclaim while litigation is pending, it is forever barred from raising the claim.


Question: When is a counterclaim compulsory?

Answer: A counterclaim is compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original claim.


Question: Paul from Pennsylvania sues David from Delaware for $100,000 for negligence in Texas that also caused $76,000 damage to property belonging to Tom from Texas. Can Tom intervene if Paul sues David in federal district court in Texas?

Answer: Yes, Tom can intervene because his claim arises from the same incident and does not destroy complete diversity.


Question: What is required for a permissive intervention to be granted?

Answer: Permissive intervention must not destroy complete diversity and must be supported by its own jurisdictional ground.


Question: When may intervention be granted to a non-party?

Answer: Intervention may be granted to a non-party of right if the claim will impair a related interest that no other party adequately represents, or permissively if the applicant's claim or defense and the main action have common questions of fact or law.


Question: When may a defendant serve a third-party claim on a nonparty?

Answer: A defendant may serve a third-party claim only on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it, meaning that the basis of the claim must be derivative liability.


Question: In an action filed in federal district court, the plaintiff serves the defendant with the summons and complaint along with interrogatories. What can the defendant do?

Answer: The defendant can obtain a protective order regarding the interrogatories because formal discovery may not commence until after the parties have met and conferred.


Question: When may formal discovery commence?

Answer: Formal discovery may not commence until the parties have met and conferred to discuss their claims and defenses, possible settlement, initial disclosures, and a discovery plan.


Question: The plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and the defendant answers and files a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff decides to dismiss the action with the intent to refile it later. What must the plaintiff do?

Answer: The plaintiff must file a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.


Question: When can a plaintiff voluntarily dismiss an action?

Answer: A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal any time prior to service of an adverse party's answer or motion for summary judgment.


Question: The plaintiff sues his employer for age discrimination. The employer files a motion for summary judgment with proof that the plaintiff's poor job performance was the reason for termination. What can the court do if the plaintiff shows essential facts needed to justify his opposition are not available without discovery?

Answer: The court may refuse the application for summary judgment and allow additional time for discovery.


Question: What must a party opposing a motion for summary judgment show in its affidavit?

Answer: The party must show that it cannot obtain affidavits containing facts essential to justify its opposition to summary judgment, which may lead the court to deny the summary judgment motion or order a continuance for further discovery.


Question: The defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff requires more time for additional discovery. What must the plaintiff do?

Answer: The plaintiff must establish a basis for additional discovery and attach a declaration describing the desired discovery that has the potential to raise a genuine issue of material fact when taken in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.


Question: When is summary judgment properly entered?

Answer: Summary judgment is properly entered after an adequate time for discovery and the opposing party may have a right to a continuance by submitting an application demonstrating the need for additional discovery.


Question: What must the non-moving party do to defeat a motion for summary judgment?

Answer: The non-moving party must identify specific evidence in the record demonstrating a material factual dispute for trial, citing specific materials such as depositions, documents, affidavits, and admissions.


Question: The scheduling order deadline for discovery has passed and the trial is scheduled for one month from now. An attorney makes a motion for a 6-month extension to conduct discovery because he had been too busy to depose key witnesses. Will this motion be granted?

Answer: No. The motion request will be denied because the attorney has not shown good cause for the delay.


Question: What must a party show to amend pleadings after a scheduling order deadline?

Answer: The party must show good cause, which requires a showing that the party acted diligently to try to meet the original deadline.


Question: Discovery closes and the court enters a final pre-trial order setting out the issues for trial. A party seeks to amend the order to include another issue. When may this motion be granted?

Answer: The motion may be granted only to prevent manifest injustice, which is a very difficult standard to meet.


Question: What does a pre-trial order detail and how can it be amended?

Answer: A pre-trial order details the witnesses, issues, evidence, and the order of trial. It supersedes the pleadings and may be amended only to prevent manifest injustice.


Question: Under FRCP Rule 16, what happens after a trial court issues a final pretrial order regarding the trial plan?

Answer: The order supersedes the pleadings and may be modified only to prevent manifest injustice, with the burden on the moving party to show the injustice.


Question: Does a FRCP Rule 12 dismissal of a proper federal claim divest the district court of supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims?

Answer: No. It does not divest the district court of supplemental jurisdiction, but the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.


Question: The plaintiff sues the defendant in federal district court on a proper federal claim and a state law claim. If the federal claim is dismissed, what can the court do regarding the state law claim?

Answer: The court retains discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim or may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.


Question: How can a defendant remove proceedings to federal court?

Answer: A defendant can remove the proceedings by filing for removal within 30 days of the filing of the complaint. Federal question cases are removable without regard to the citizenship of the parties, but any other such action is removable only if none of the defendants are a citizen of the state where the claim is brought (forum-defendant rule in diversity suits).


Question: What are the two citizenships of a corporation for diversity purposes?

Answer: A corporation is a citizen of (1) the state where it is incorporated and (2) the state where it has its principal place of business (nerve center where it makes its executive decisions, usually its headquarters).


Question: Paul claims $250,000 in damages against David, and Peter claims $50,000 in damages against David. If both Paul and Peter are diverse from David and both claims arise from the same facts, does the federal court have jurisdiction over Peter's claim?

Answer: Yes. The federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over Peter's claim because Paul's claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirement and both claims arise from the same facts.


Question: When does the court have diversity jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claims if the aggregate claims of at least one plaintiff meet the amount-in-controversy requirement?

Answer: The court has diversity jurisdiction over that plaintiff's claims if the diversity-of-citizenship requirement is met, and it may have supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of any other plaintiff, even if those claims do not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.


Question: A third-party defendant counterclaims back against the third-party plaintiff, and the counterclaim is compulsory. Does the counterclaim need to independently meet the requirement for diversity suits?

Answer: No. There is supplemental jurisdiction because compulsory counterclaims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim, thus falling within the court's supplemental jurisdiction.


Question: What must a party state as a counterclaim under the FRCP?

Answer: A party must state as a counterclaim any claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. If the counterclaim is compulsory, it is within the supplemental jurisdiction of the court.


Question: Can a plaintiff remove a case to federal court?

Answer: No, only defendants can exercise the right of removal. A plaintiff cannot remove a case to federal court.


Question: Under what conditions may a defendant remove a case to federal court?

Answer: A defendant may remove a case to federal court if (1) the federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction, (2) all defendants join in the petition, (3) no defendant is a resident of the forum state, and (4) removal is sought within 30 days after the defendant originally received service.


Question: Can two foreign aliens sue in federal court under diversity jurisdiction?

Answer: No, two foreign aliens cannot sue in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, but a person domiciled in a state may sue a citizen of a foreign country in federal district court.


Question: What are the requirements for diversity jurisdiction regarding party citizenship?

Answer: Each party must be a citizen of a state or foreign country, but at least one party must be a US citizen.


Question: If the highest state court rules under both state and federal law, can the Supreme Court review the federal claim?

Answer: No. The Supreme Court cannot review the federal claim because the issue has been decided on adequate and independent state grounds.


Question: When can the U.S. Supreme Court review a state court judgment?

Answer: The U.S. Supreme Court can review a state court judgment only if it rested on federal grounds. There is no Supreme Court review if the federal issue doesn't affect the outcome.


Question: What happens if a claim asserts federal trademark infringement?

Answer: It arises under federal law, and subject-matter jurisdiction is proper as a general federal-question action.


Question: If the defendant's activity in the forum state is sporadic and casual, can the state exercise personal jurisdiction over him?

Answer: No, sporadic and casual activity is not enough to subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction. However, a single isolated contact is sufficient if the claim arises out of that contact.


Question: Under the FRCP and Due Process Clause, what must a defendant have before a state may exercise specific jurisdiction over him?

Answer: A defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state, and the claim must arise from those particular contacts.


Question: A trustee from State B holding trust assets in State B is sued by a beneficiary residing in State A while the trustee is on vacation in State A. Can the trustee move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?

Answer: Yes. The trustee can move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because minimum contacts cannot be satisfied unless there is some act where the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of doing activities within the state.


Question: What must a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant comport with?

Answer: It must comport with Due Process. A state may not exercise jurisdiction if the defendant's contacts with the state are negligible and non-deliberate, and the claim does not arise from those contacts.


Question: A defendant from State B is sued in federal court in State A based on diversity, but the defendant has no contacts with State A. What should the defendant do?

Answer: The defendant should move to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and attach an affidavit about his lack of connection to State A.


Question: What should a defendant do if seeking to have an action in federal court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction?

Answer: The defendant should file a motion along with any supporting legal arguments in an accompanying memorandum of law and any facts needed to support the motion by attaching affidavits, deposition transcripts, interrogatories, business records, or other evidentiary documents.


Question: Does jurisdiction over a parent corporation automatically give jurisdiction over a subsidiary?

Answer: No, jurisdiction over a parent corporation does not automatically give jurisdiction over a subsidiary unless the parent exerts substantial control over the subsidiary.


Question: What does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment not permit regarding foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations?

Answer: It does not permit a state to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign subsidiary if it lacks continuous and systematic business contacts with the state.


Question: How long does a defendant have to answer the complaint if they agree to waive service?

Answer: The defendant has 60 days from the date the plaintiff sent the waiver request to answer the complaint (90 days if the defendant is foreign).


Question: How long does a defendant have to decide whether to waive service if the complaint is accompanied by a request for waiver of service?

Answer: The defendant has 30 days from the date of the waiver request to decide whether to waive service.


Question: How long does a defendant have to respond to a complaint if formally served?

Answer: The defendant has 21 days from the date of service to respond to the complaint.


Question: What are the general rules for good cause in extending time for service?

Answer: Good cause is measured against (1) the plaintiff's reasonable efforts to effect service and (2) the prejudice to the defendant from delay. Ignorance, forgetfulness, inadvertence, or misplaced reliance by an attorney are not good cause.


Question: What happens if service is not made within 90 days after filing under FRCP Rule 4?

Answer: The court must dismiss the action, but may extend the time for service for an appropriate period if the plaintiff demonstrates good cause for the failure to timely effect service.


Question: How can an individual or corporate defendant be served?

Answer: By following the state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.


Question: Can an individual defendant be served by delivering process to a third party found at the defendant's place of employment?

Answer: No. An individual defendant may not be served by delivering process to a third party found at the defendant's place of employment.


Question: The plaintiff domiciled in State A brings a federal diversity action in State A for an accident in State B against the defendant who is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State B and operates in States A and B. Other passengers also injured have brought individual actions in State B federal court. If the defendant requests a transfer of venue to State B, will the motion be granted?

Answer: Yes. The motion will be granted because State B appears to be the most convenient venue for the action.


Question: Under what conditions may a court transfer a case to another venue even if the original venue is proper?

Answer: A court may transfer the case for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interests of justice, provided the action could have been originally filed in the transferee district.


Question: What must be true for a case to be transferred to a transferee district?

Answer: All defendants must be subject to personal jurisdiction in the transferee district, the transferee court must have had subject matter jurisdiction, and venue must be proper in the transferee district.


Question: Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, when will a court decline to hear a case?

Answer: A court will decline to hear a case when doing so would be seriously inconvenient for the parties, witnesses, and the court. Factors considered include access to evidence and convenience of witnesses, administrative efficiency, local interest in having local cases decided at home, and consideration of the burden on potential jurors. Whether a forum may be less favorable to the plaintiff is not relevant.


Question: What happens if the parties' contract specifies one federal district court as the forum for litigating disputes, but the plaintiff files suit in a different federal district court?

Answer: The defendant may seek to transfer the case to the court specified in the forum-selection clause by invoking the federal statute that permits transfers of venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.


Question: A defendant who has his office and principal place of business in State C is sued by a State B citizen in State A federal district court for an accident that happened in State A. Can the defendant transfer the case to State C district court?

Answer: Yes. The defendant can likely transfer the case to State C district court if the transfer is appropriate based on the convenience of the parties, the convenience of witnesses, and the interests of justice.


Question: What must the movant establish to obtain a transfer of venue?

Answer: The movant must establish: (1) that the action could have been brought in the district to which the movant seeks transfer (i.e., the proposed forum must have proper subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendants and proper venue); and (2) that the transfer is appropriate based on the convenience of the parties, the convenience of witnesses, and the interests of justice.


Question: Under what conditions can a defendant remove a case from state court to federal court?

Answer: A defendant can remove a case from state court to federal court if it could have been filed there originally, provided all defendants join in the petition for removal and so long as neither defendant is a citizen of the forum state. A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the jurisdiction in which it has its principal place of business.


Question: When may any party move for judgment on the pleadings?

Answer: After the pleadings are closed, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings, provided that the motion is made within such time as to not delay the trial. When a counterclaim is filed, the pleadings are closed at the time that an answer to the counterclaim is filed.


Question: If a plaintiff sues a defendant on a contract claim and the defendant moves for summary judgment, attaching affidavits and other evidence showing the contract was fully performed, what must the plaintiff do to oppose the summary judgment motion?

Answer: The plaintiff must respond with evidence sufficient to establish a jury issue. Failure to respond entitles the defendant to judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact.


Question: What must the party opposing a summary judgment motion do if the moving party has supported their motion with sufficient evidence?

Answer: The party opposing summary judgment must respond with specific facts showing the existence of genuine issues of material fact for trial. Mere conclusory allegations do not serve to establish a genuine issue of material fact.


Question: What can the court do under the FRCP to a pleading containing insufficient defenses or irrelevant materials?

Answer: The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. A party may move to have stricken any defense that is not a legal defense along with any irrelevant materials from a pleading.


Question: Can a defendant be granted summary judgment if it is based on an assertion that the plaintiff is not credible?

Answer: No. The defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because a factual dispute exists.


Question: When may a district court grant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) against a party under FRCP Rule 50?

Answer: A district court may grant JMOL against a party if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party. JMOL is properly granted when, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, a reasonable jury could only have found for the movant.


Question: What is the time limit for filing certain motions under the FRCP after entry of judgment?

Answer: The following motions must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment: a motion for RJMOL, a motion for a new trial, a motion to amend judgment, a motion to amend findings of fact in a non-jury case, and a grant of a new trial on the court's initiative.


Question: Can summary judgment be granted when there is an issue as to a material fact that can't be resolved without observation of the witnesses to evaluate their credibility?

Answer: No, summary judgment cannot be granted in such cases. However, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material questions of fact.


Question: Peter's estate claims that David drove his car into Peter's lane, causing Peter to swerve and drive off a cliff, killing Peter. If Peter's estate's only witness testifies that he heard a screech suggesting David swerved, but David calls three disinterested witnesses who saw the entire accident and state David never drove out of his lane, is summary judgment appropriate for David?

Answer: Yes, summary judgment is appropriate for David because there is no genuine dispute of material fact given the overwhelming testimony from disinterested witnesses.


Question: What happens if a JMOL motion is originally made before the verdict and then renewed after the jury has rendered its verdict?

Answer: The motion is called a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL), and the standard applied is the same as that for a directed verdict. An RJMOL is appropriate if no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict.


Question: When may either party move for a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) during a trial?

Answer: At the close of the other party's case, but before the case is submitted to the jury, either party may move for JMOL if the opponent has presented no substantial evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.


Question: Under what conditions can a motion for a new trial be granted?

Answer: A motion for a new trial will not be granted unless the verdict is against the great and clear weight of the evidence and there is a firm conviction that the trier of fact made a mistake.


Question: What must a party do to seek judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) during a trial?

Answer: A party must make a motion for JMOL at the close of evidence and before the case is submitted to the jury. If a party does not timely move for JMOL at trial, they waive their right to move for RJMOL after the verdict is rendered.


Question: When can a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) be granted?

Answer: A motion for JMOL can be granted only if the court determines that the evidence is legally insufficient to allow the jury to decide the case.


Question: If a plaintiff's action in federal court is dismissed with prejudice after a settlement with the defendant, and the plaintiff later learns of a mistake in the settlement amount, can the plaintiff reopen the judgment 16 months later?

Answer: No. The motion to reopen the judgment will be dismissed because it was not filed within one year of the court's entry of judgment.


Question: What is the only method provided by FRCP Rule 60 for attacking a judgment without appealing?

Answer: A party must make a Rule 60 motion within a reasonable time, and for grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or newly discovered evidence, the motion must be made within one year after entry of the judgment.


Question: If a trial court improperly admits testimony attacking the defendant's character, what should the defendant do?

Answer: The defendant should raise any preserved evidentiary objections as a ground for a new trial because if there is an appeal and the appellate court agrees, it will order the case remanded for a new trial.


Question: Under what conditions may a new trial be granted to correct an erroneous ruling on the admissibility of evidence?

Answer: A new trial may be granted if the error was prejudicial and was the subject of a timely objection.


Question: If a defendant is found liable in a civil trial due to a criminal conviction, and the criminal judgment is reversed, what should the defendant do?

Answer: The defendant should promptly move for relief from the final judgment in the civil case, and the district court may reverse the final judgment based on the reversal of the criminal conviction.


Question: Under FRCP Rule 60, when can a final judgment be reversed?

Answer: A final judgment can be reversed if the prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated.


Question: What is required for a judgment to be reopened based on fraud or misconduct?

Answer: A motion for relief from judgment based on fraud or misconduct must be filed within one year of entry of judgment. The movant must establish that the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted.


Question: Does seeking equitable relief in addition to legal relief eliminate the right to a jury trial?

Answer: No, seeking equitable relief in addition to legal relief does not eliminate the right to a jury trial. Every legal issue, whether or not incidental to an equitable claim, carries the right to a jury trial.


Question: What does the Seventh Amendment provide regarding the right to a jury trial?

Answer: The Seventh Amendment provides for the right to a jury trial in suits at law, but there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in suits of equity. Whether a suit is in law or equity depends on the remedy sought.


Question: What must be tried first if legal and equitable claims are joined in one action involving common fact issues?

Answer: The legal claim should be tried first to the jury, and then the equitable claim to the court.


Question: What does the Seventh Amendment provide regarding the right to a jury trial with respect to legal claims in federal courts?

Answer: There is an absolute right to a jury trial with respect to legal claims in federal courts, and when legal and equitable claims are joined, the legal claims must be tried prior to equitable ones.


Question: What must be done if the plaintiff sues for injunctive relief based on a contract and the defendant counterclaims for damages based on breach of the contract?

Answer: The court must hold a jury trial on the legal counterclaim first because the plaintiff's right to injunctive relief would be premised upon the legal question of whether or not the defendant was in breach of the contract.


Question: The plaintiff does not request a jury in his complaint and then amends the complaint to add new issues before the defendant answers. The plaintiff makes a jury demand for both the old issues and the new issues in the amended complaint. Is this valid?

Answer: Yes. This is valid for the old issues because the answer hasn't been filed yet and for the new issues due to the amendment.


Question: When must a demand for a jury trial be made?

Answer: A demand for a jury trial must be made within 14 days after service of the complaint or answer. If one amends a pleading, the amendment does not change the time to file a demand for a jury trial, but if the amendment adds new issues, the party gets 14 more days to file a demand for a jury on the new issues.


Question: How many jurors must participate in a verdict under the FRCP?

Answer: Under the FRCP, a minimum of 6 jurors and a maximum of 12 jurors must participate in a verdict unless the parties otherwise stipulate. The verdict must be unanimous, and no verdict will be taken from a jury that is reduced in size to fewer than 6 members.


Question: In a federal patent case, can the parties agree that a unanimous decision is not necessary and stipulate to fewer than 6 jurors?

Answer: Yes. In a federal patent case, the parties can agree that a unanimous decision is not necessary and stipulate to fewer than 6 jurors.


Question: How many members must a federal civil jury have?

Answer: A federal civil jury must begin with at least 6 and no more than 12 members, and the verdict must be unanimous unless stipulated otherwise by the parties. The parties can agree that a unanimous decision is not necessary and may also stipulate to fewer than 6 jurors.


Question: What does a challenge for cause require?

Answer: A challenge for cause requires the court's objective determination as to whether the potential juror meets the statutory qualifications for jury duty. The court will consider only a potential juror's relationship to one of the litigants or evidence of bias or prejudice regarding one of the litigants.


Question: What must a party do to preserve an objection to jury instructions for appeal?

Answer: A party must object to jury instructions on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection to preserve the issue for appeal. Otherwise, the appeal can only be successful if the instruction affected the party's substantial rights, meeting the standard for plain error.


Question: What must a party show to establish plain error?

Answer: To establish plain error, a party must show: (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) that affects substantial rights. The error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law and must have been prejudicial or affected the outcome of the proceeding.


Question: When must a party object to a proposed jury instruction under the FRCP?

Answer: A party must object to a proposed jury instruction at the time the court informs it of the proposed instruction, or at the earliest time to object. Failure to properly object means the issue is not preserved for appellate review, and only the plain error standard of review applies.


Question: Are errors in jury instructions waived without timely objections?

Answer: Yes, errors in jury instructions are generally waived without timely objections. However, an obvious and substantial error may be reversible even without a timely objection if it made an obviously incorrect statement of law that was probably responsible for an incorrect verdict, leading to substantial injustice.


Question: What is the Klaxon rule?

Answer: The Klaxon rule states that a federal district court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law approach prevailing in the state in which it sits. This ensures that a federal court sitting in diversity and the state court sitting next door would reach the same result if presented with the same case.


Question: What happens when there is a conflict between a state rule and a valid rule under the FRCP?

Answer: When there is a conflict between a state rule and a valid rule under the FRCP, the FRCP trumps without regard to the purpose underlying the conflicting state rule.


Question: What does the Supremacy Clause require?

Answer: The Supremacy Clause requires federal law to govern over any conflicting state law, meaning that a federal rule, established within the limits of the Constitution, prevails over conflicting state law, provided the federal rule is sufficiently broad to cover the issue.


Question: What are the elements required to preclude a claim?

Answer: A claim can be precluded if: (1) there was a valid, final judgment on the merits in the first action; (2) the second action is between the same parties or their privies; and (3) the second action involves the same claim or cause of action.


Question: In a federal diversity action, how does a court determine which state's laws to apply?

Answer: In a federal diversity action, a court must look to the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits to determine which of the two competing states' laws should be applied to the action before it.


Question: What does the Erie Doctrine state?

Answer: Under the Erie Doctrine, in diversity cases, the court applies the substantive law of the state where the court sits and federal procedural law, unless the state procedural law would result in important differences whereby the court uses state procedural law.


Question: What does FRCP Rule 54 allow for?

Answer: FRCP Rule 54 allows for an appeal when there is a final judgment on one claim even though there are still other claims in the same suit. This partial judgment can be immediately appealed if the court expressly determines in the order for final judgment that there is no just reason for delay.


Question: What is the final judgment rule?

Answer: The final judgment rule states that parties can only appeal from a final judgment on all claims in the action. In certifying partial judgment for immediate appeal, the district court must explain its reasons, keeping in mind the need to avoid piecemeal appeals and to certify claims only when they constitute separate and distinct questions of law and fact.


Question: What is the nature of summary judgments?

Answer: Summary judgments are binding and final on the merits, providing a basis for appeal when granted. However, the denial of a summary judgment motion is not a final decision and does not provide a basis for appeal.


Question: Can a party in federal court appeal a denial of a motion for lack of personal jurisdiction before the trial?

Answer: No. A party in federal court cannot appeal a denial of a motion for lack of personal jurisdiction until after the trial on the merits because the appeal is interlocutory.


Question: Are there constitutional limits on punitive damages awards?

Answer: Yes. Constitutional limits are placed on a state's ability to award punitive damages, and due process prohibits imposing grossly excessive punitive damage awards. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury's punitive damages award is a question of law reviewed de novo.


Question: What can a judge do to cure a prejudicial error such as an improper jury instruction?

Answer: A judge can order a new trial to cure a prejudicial error such as an improper jury instruction.


Question: How are questions about the exclusion of evidence reviewed on appeal?

Answer: Questions about whether evidence should have been excluded because it was irrelevant or highly prejudicial are reviewed using an abuse-of-discretion standard.


Question: Can any judgment, including a default judgment, be vacated?

Answer: Yes. Any judgment, including a default judgment, can be vacated by the court that entered it. The FRCP provides several possible grounds for setting aside a judgment, including that the judgment is void. A judgment is void if it is so affected by a fundamental infirmity that it may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.


Question: A plaintiff sues a defendant and the defendant answers and files a counterclaim. If the plaintiff doesn't answer the counterclaim, can the clerk enter a default judgment?

Answer: No. Only the judge can enter a default judgment on the counterclaim because the plaintiff has appeared in the action by filing the complaint.


Question: When can the court clerk enter a default judgment?

Answer: The court clerk can enter a default judgment only if the claim is for a sum certain and the defaulting party neither filed a responsive pleading nor appeared in the action.


Question: A defendant is served with a complaint and files a motion to dismiss but fails to answer the complaint. If the plaintiff later seeks a default judgment, what notice must be given to the defendant?

Answer: The defendant or his representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 7 days before the hearing.


Question: What notice must be given if a defendant has appeared in the action but defaults in some other way?

Answer: If a defendant has appeared in the action but defaults in some other way, he is entitled to 7 days' notice of the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for judgment.


Question: When can a plaintiff voluntarily dismiss his action as a matter of right?

Answer: A plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss his action as a matter of right before an answer or motion for summary judgment is served on the plaintiff by either filing a written notice of dismissal or entering into a stipulation with the defendant. A plaintiff can only dismiss a cause of action once without prejudice; a second dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.


Question: How are findings of fact in a bench trial treated on appeal?

Answer: Findings of fact in a bench trial will not be set aside on appeal unless they were clearly erroneous. These findings can be stated orally by the judge and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence.


Question: What must a judge do at the conclusion of a nonjury bench trial?

Answer: At the conclusion of a nonjury bench trial, the judge must make findings of fact and conclusions of law either orally on the record or in a filed memorandum of decision, followed by a written judgment.


Question: What does FRCP Rule 13 allow?

Answer: FRCP Rule 13 allows a party to make counterclaims against an opposing party who has filed a claim against the party. A counterclaim is compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim.


Question: When does an order of dismissal have res judicata effect?

Answer: An order of dismissal is entitled to res judicata effect if the circumstances indicate it is on the merits or with prejudice to relitigation of the earlier claim. If the court specifies that a dismissal is without prejudice, res judicata does not preclude assertion of the same claim or issue in a second proceeding.


Question: What is nonmutual issue preclusion?

Answer: Nonmutual issue preclusion occurs when someone who was not a party to the first case uses the judgment for issue preclusion against someone who was a party to the first case. Courts base their determination on whether the plaintiff in the second suit could have easily joined in the first action, whether there are procedural opportunities available to the defendant in the second suit that were unavailable in the earlier action, and whether the defendant had incentive to litigate the issue in the first action.


Question: What happens if a plaintiff loses his case against a defendant?

Answer: If a plaintiff loses his case against a defendant, all possible grounds for relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence are barred in future litigation between the same parties due to claim preclusion.


Question: When is a private entity considered a state actor?

Answer: A private entity is considered a state actor if there is a close nexus between the state and the entity, so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the state itself. The private entity must be exercising powers traditionally and exclusively reserved to the government to be considered a state actor.


Question: Does private property lose its private nature if the public is invited onto it?

Answer: No. Private property does not lose its private nature just because the public is invited onto it, and any private store can exclude individuals trying to assert their First Amendment rights.


Question: Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply to private entities?

Answer: Generally, the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply only to the actions of governments and government officials, not to the actions of privately owned companies. However, courts have found state action where the government is significantly involved in the private entity or the private actor has exercised a public function.


Question: Can an association discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex if it is regarded as an agency of the state?

Answer: No. If an association is regarded as an agency of the state, it must comport with the constitution and cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex.


Question: Can the Equal Protection Clause apply to private citizens?

Answer: Yes. While the Equal Protection Clause forbids only governmental discrimination, it may apply to a private citizen if that person is an agent of the state and acting in that capacity.


Question: When does state action exist in a private company?

Answer: State action exists if a state encourages and facilitates discriminating acts in a private company.


Question: What does the 13th Amendment address?

Answer: The 13th Amendment addresses private acts of racial discrimination.


Question: What does the 13th Amendment prohibit?

Answer: The 13th Amendment prohibits public and private discrimination in housing.


Question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment apply to federal action?

Answer: No. The Fourteenth Amendment does not directly apply to federal action, only to state action.


Question: Displaying a bumper sticker on a vehicle is symbolic political speech. May it be regulated unless the state shows a compelling need closely related to the regulation?

Answer: No. It may not be regulated unless the state shows a compelling need closely related to the regulation.


Question: Is licensure by a government body sufficient to make an individual a state actor?

Answer: No. Licensure by a government body does not make an individual a state actor.


Question: What is the requirement for forced sterilization of habitual criminals to be constitutional?

Answer: Forced sterilization of habitual criminals is unconstitutional because there is no equal protection of the law due to the irrational differentiation of crimes that qualify for sterilization along with the fact that the fundamental right of procreation is at stake.


Question: If a pharmacist is found guilty of the crime of selling narcotics without a prescription, can the pharmacist's license be revoked without an opportunity for a trial-type hearing?

Answer: Yes. The pharmacist's license can be revoked without an opportunity for a trial-type hearing before revoking the license.


Question: Congress enacts a statute to provide new agricultural subsidies to eligible farmers on a discretionary basis. If a farmer applies for the subsidy but his application is denied by the federal agency administering the subsidies, does the farmer have a due process right to a hearing?

Answer: No. The farmer has no due process rights because the statute gives the agency discretion in selecting subsidy recipients.


Question: A private college receives 30% of its funding from the state and fires an employee for uploading a denouncement on the high cost of education. Can the employee recover on First Amendment grounds?

Answer: No. The private employer's action cannot be imputed to the state for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: A federal law requires new security measures in airports that apply only to individuals of one race. Is this constitutional?

Answer: No. It is unconstitutional unless the government can prove the racial classification is necessary to serve a compelling public interest.


Question: A minor seeks to have an abortion. Is a state law requiring parental notification constitutional?

Answer: Yes. A state law requiring parental notification is constitutional if the minor may seek a judicial bypass where the minor petitions a judge to authorize her physician to perform an abortion without parental notification if the judge finds the minor is mature and capable of giving informed consent.


Question: Does a licensing ordinance give licensees a property interest in being free of competition from additional licensees?

Answer: No. Licensees do not have a right to demand a hearing for the purpose of objecting to additional licensees.


Question: Does a person have the right under due process of law to confront and cross-examine witnesses in administrative proceedings that substantially impact that person's property interests?

Answer: Yes. A person has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in such administrative proceedings.


Question: With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, are abortion policies and reproductive rights in the hands of each state?

Answer: Yes. Abortion policies and reproductive rights are now in the hands of each state, enabling individual states to ban abortion or adopt abortion restrictions.


Question: What is the standard of review when a governmental action affects fundamental rights such as marriage, child-bearing, and child-rearing?

Answer: The court will use strict scrutiny, and the burden of persuasion is on the state to show the law is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose and is the least restrictive alternative.


Question: What is the standard of review for a state statute that permanently removes children from their parents due to child abuse?

Answer: The statute is subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest.


Question: Do government employees of the state have a right to be rehired after their probationary period expires if state law does not require it?

Answer: No. Government employees of the state do not have a right to be rehired after their probationary period expires if state law does not require it, nor is there a requirement for a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearing.


Question: Is a state statute banning contraceptive sales to minors constitutional?

Answer: No. A state statute banning contraceptive sales to minors may be unconstitutional because it denies minors one of their fundamental rights without due process.


Question: Do probationary employees of a state agency have a right to be re-hired if state law does not require it?

Answer: No. Probationary employees of a state agency do not have a right to be re-hired if state law does not require it, although procedural due process may require a hearing if the employee relied on an oral promise from the employer.


Question: Do probationary employees of a state agency have a right to be re-hired after their probationary period expires if state law does not require it?

Answer: No. Probationary employees of a state agency do not have a right to be re-hired after their probationary period expires if state law does not require it, nor is there a requirement for a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearing.


Question: A state passes a law that exempts a debtor's home from judgment creditors only if the debtor has lived in the state for at least two years. Does this law trigger strict scrutiny?

Answer: Yes. This law may trigger strict scrutiny under both the Equal Protection and the Privileges or Immunities Clauses if the benefit is deemed sufficiently vital or important.


Question: What are the conditions under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for an individual to enjoy the same privileges and immunities as other citizens of the state?

Answer: An individual has a fundamental right to migrate from state to state. As such, durational residency requirements involving important government benefits or privileges are subject to strict scrutiny.


Question: Is licensing of persons who deal with the general public a valid exercise of the state's police power?

Answer: Yes. Licensing of persons who deal with the general public is a valid exercise of the state's police power and is subject to low-level, rational basis scrutiny.


Question: What must a plaintiff show to survive rational basis review of a state requirement for a mechanic to have a certain amount of experience as a precondition for securing a license?

Answer: To survive rational basis review, the plaintiff must show that the measure serves no legitimate government interest or is not rationally related to any legitimate interest.


Question: If a wealthy school district raises substantially more tax revenue for education than a poor school district, does this involve a fundamental right?

Answer: No. If a wealthy school district raises substantially more tax revenue for education than a poor school district, no fundamental right is involved and the claim will be subject to rational basis review.


Question: Is there a fundamental right to education guaranteed in the Constitution?

Answer: No. There is no fundamental right to education guaranteed in the Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause does not require exact equality or precisely equal advantages among school districts.


Question: Can a state give reduced benefits to new residents who have lived in the state for less than 2 months versus full benefits provided to other residents?

Answer: No. A state cannot give reduced benefits to new residents who have lived in the state for less than 2 months versus full benefits provided to other residents.


Question: What is the standard of review for durational residency requirements for dispensing government benefits under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer: Durational residency requirements for dispensing government benefits are subject to strict scrutiny.


Question: What is the standard for economic regulations and wealth discrimination?

Answer: Economic regulations and wealth discrimination need only satisfy the rational-basis standard.


Question: What is the standard for a state law that impairs the obligations of an existing contract under the Contracts Clause?

Answer: The court examines three factors to determine if the law is constitutional: (1) has the law substantially impaired an obligation of an existing contract; (2) does the government have a significant and legitimate reason for the impairment; and (3) is the law based on reasonable conditions and is it appropriate to the public purpose underlying the law.


Question: Can a state terminate parental rights if the child is subjected to real physical or emotional harm?

Answer: Yes. A state can terminate parental rights if the child is subjected to real physical or emotional harm and allowing the parent-child relationship to continue is more severe than the consequences of termination.


Question: What must be balanced in a state's interest in protecting children against a parent's interest in raising their children in an environment free from government interference?

Answer: The state's interest in protecting children must be balanced against a parent's interest in raising their children in an environment free from government interference. This fundamental right to family integrity requires that a state's termination of parental rights be subject to strict scrutiny.


Question: Can states impose a 1-year residency requirement for children to attend public schools in the state?

Answer: No. States cannot impose a 1-year residency requirement for children to attend public schools in the state.


Question: Can states impose a 1-year residency requirement for lower tuition at state universities or charge higher fees to non-residents to obtain a hunting license?

Answer: Yes. States can impose a 1-year residency requirement for lower tuition at state universities or charge higher fees to non-residents to obtain a hunting license because these interests do not involve the "necessities of life" and are not considered "fundamental rights."


Question: What is the standard for the imposition of minimum durational residency requirements as a basis for receipt of state benefits under the Equal Protection Clause?

Answer: The imposition of minimum durational residency requirements as a basis for receipt of state benefits generally violates the Equal Protection Clause.


Question: Is a school dress code prohibiting students from wearing V-neck shirts constitutional if it promotes an educational environment?

Answer: Yes. A school dress code prohibiting students from wearing V-neck shirts is constitutional if it promotes an educational environment, is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and there is no evidence showing a discriminatory purpose.


Question: What are the conditions for a school dress code or uniform policy to be constitutional?

Answer: A school dress code or uniform policy is constitutional if it: (1) is authorized under state law; (2) advances an important government interest; (3) is not related to the suppression of free expression; and (4) only incidentally restricts free expression in a minimal fashion.


Question: Does the exclusion of aliens from service on grand and petit jury panels in state and federal courts deny resident aliens equal protection?

Answer: No. The exclusion of aliens from service on grand and petit jury panels in state and federal courts does not deny resident aliens equal protection.


Question: Is a state law requiring U.S. citizenship for jury service constitutional?

Answer: Yes. A state law requiring U.S. citizenship for jury service is constitutional because the state has a legitimate interest in restricting jury service to those who will be loyal to, interested in, and familiar with the customs of this country.


Question: What is the standard of review for a person's decision to marry?

Answer: A person's decision to marry is a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny.


Question: What is the standard of review for state regulations that unduly burden the right to marry without a compelling state interest?

Answer: Any state regulation that unduly burdens the right to marry without a compelling state interest fails strict scrutiny.


Question: Do parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing and education of their children?

Answer: Yes. Parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing and education of their children.


Question: Is a statute that requires mandatory attendance of a public school for children constitutional?

Answer: No. A statute that requires mandatory attendance of a public school for children is unconstitutional because it fails strict scrutiny by unreasonably infringing with the liberty of parents to direct the education of their children through private school or homeschooling.


Question: What is the standard of review for an ordinance that requires baby-sitters to obtain a license?

Answer: The ordinance must be rationally related to a legitimate government objective and does not trigger heightened scrutiny even though the ordinance will disproportionately affect women more than men because there is no evidence of sex discrimination.


Question: What is the standard of review for legislation or government action that discriminates against a non-suspect class?

Answer: The rational basis test is triggered when legislation or government action discriminates against a non-suspect class, with the exception of sex/gender discrimination which requires intermediate scrutiny.


Question: Is a statute that requires medical diagnostic centers to be affiliated with hospitals constitutional?

Answer: Yes. A statute that requires medical diagnostic centers to be affiliated with hospitals is constitutional because it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The statute does not trigger heightened judicial scrutiny because it neither classifies regulatory subjects on a constitutionally suspect basis nor unduly burdens the exercise of a fundamental right.


Question: What is the standard for a panel selection process that permits gender-based classifications?

Answer: A panel selection process that permits gender-based classifications warrants intermediate scrutiny and must serve an important government objective and be substantially related to that objective.


Question: Does a complex state system that limits access to the ballot to effectively preclude a new political party violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer: Yes. A complex state system that limits access to the ballot to effectively preclude a new political party violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: Is a state statute that requires a certain percentage of state contracts to be awarded to minorities constitutional?

Answer: No. A state statute that requires a certain percentage of state contracts to be awarded to minorities is unconstitutional as violative of the Equal Protection Clause unless it is to vindicate a compelling government interest to redress past discrimination.


Question: Are state statutory presumptions that students are not residents, making them ineligible to vote, constitutional?

Answer: No. State statutory presumptions that students are not residents, making them ineligible to vote, are unconstitutional because there are less restrictive means by which the state could be assured that only actual residents of a community vote in its elections.


Question: What is the standard for a law that bars the right to inherit by an illegitimate child?

Answer: A law that bars the right to inherit by an illegitimate child must be substantially related to an important government objective to not violate equal protection.


Question: What is the burden of proof for a state in a challenge of a state statute that prevents resident aliens from being employed by the state?

Answer: The state has the burden of demonstrating that the citizenship requirement is necessary to advance an important state interest.


Question: Is the distribution by the state of free textbooks to schools that promote racial segregation constitutional?

Answer: No. The distribution by the state of free textbooks to schools that promote racial segregation may be unconstitutional as violative of the Equal Protection rights against discrimination.


Question: Is the distribution by the state of free textbooks to schools that promote racial segregation a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer: Yes. The distribution by the state of free textbooks to schools that promote racial segregation may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: What is the strongest ground to challenge a state requirement that people seeking work licenses must have been residents of the state for at least two years?

Answer: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the strongest ground to challenge such a state requirement.


Question: Does a state enforcing a deed restriction that bars the sale of the property to anyone under 21 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer: Yes. A state enforcing a deed restriction that bars the sale of the property to anyone under 21 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: Is a state requirement that candidates for licenses must be U.S. citizens constitutional?

Answer: No. A state requirement that candidates for licenses must be U.S. citizens is unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection.


Question: Does a state requirement that residents must be literate in order to vote violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer: Yes. A state requirement that residents must be literate in order to vote violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: Does a state statute allowing only landowners to vote in a referendum concerning the establishment of a watershed improvement district violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Answer: No. A state statute allowing only landowners to vote in a referendum concerning the establishment of a watershed improvement district does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.


Question: Is a state statute that distinguishes between common carriers and private individuals in economic-related legislation constitutional?

Answer: Yes. A state statute that distinguishes between common carriers and private individuals in economic-related legislation is constitutional as long as there is a rational basis for the differentiation.


Question: Is a restriction of state tuition assistance to only U.S. citizens or resident aliens seeking citizenship valid?

Answer: No. A restriction of state tuition assistance to only U.S. citizens or resident aliens seeking citizenship is invalid because the justifications for this restriction are insufficient to overcome the burden imposed on a state when it uses such an alienage classification.


Question: What is the strongest argument against a state law that disinherits illegitimate unacknowledged children?

Answer: The strongest argument against a state law that disinherits illegitimate unacknowledged children is that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is not substantially related to an important governmental objective.


Question: What is the strongest argument in favor of a state law that disinherits illegitimate unacknowledged children?

Answer: The strongest argument in favor of a state law that disinherits illegitimate unacknowledged children is that the state's interest in promoting family life and in encouraging the formal acknowledgment of paternity gives the law a rational basis.


Question: What is the standard for a statute that discriminates based on age under the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause?

Answer: A statute that discriminates based on age may be in violation of the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause if there is no relationship between age and the requirements of the statute.


Question: A state gives grants to citizens but not to aliens. What is the standard of review for this action?

Answer: This action must meet strict scrutiny and must be necessary to advance a compelling state interest.


Question: A regulation is about traffic. Can the government request an exaction for a new use permit?

Answer: The government must show that the new use will actually affect traffic, and the exaction must be proportional to the increase caused by the new use.


Question: What are the conditions under which a local government may exact promises from a developer without violating the Takings Clause?

Answer: A local government may exact promises from a developer without violating the Takings Clause if there is: (1) an essential nexus between legitimate state interests and the conditions imposed on the property owner; and (2) a rough proportionality between the burden imposed by the conditions on the property owner and the impact of the proposed development.


Question: A state law intended to promote tourism creates an easement across a portion of a private farm for hikers to get to a local waterfall. Is this an unconstitutional taking?

Answer: Yes. This is an unconstitutional taking of the farm owner's property because it impacts the owner's right to exclusive possession of his property and requires compensation.


Question: Are zoning restrictions that reduce property value considered a taking?

Answer: No. Zoning restrictions that reduce property value are not a taking if they substantially advance legitimate state interests and are not a deprivation of a core property right. However, a statute that extinguishes a fundamental attribute of property ownership is an unconstitutional taking.


Question: What is the definition of public use under the Takings Clause?

Answer: Public use is defined broadly as 'public benefit' or 'public welfare,' and so long as the taking is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, the public use requirement will be satisfied.


Question: When is a governmental land-use regulation considered a taking?

Answer: A governmental land-use regulation is considered a taking if it denies substantially all practical uses of a property, requiring compensation.


Question: If the government makes or authorizes a permanent physical occupation of private property, does this result in a taking?

Answer: Yes. Any permanent physical occupation of private property authorized by the government automatically results in a taking, regardless of the interference's extent or the government's interest.


Question: A local government regulation eliminates a property owner's investment-backed expectation and economic value of the property. Is this a taking under the Fifth Amendment?

Answer: Yes. This is a taking under the Fifth Amendment.


Question: Are zoning ordinances a legitimate exercise of the police power?

Answer: Yes. Zoning ordinances are a legitimate exercise of the police power if rationally related to a legitimate state interest such as health or safety.


Question: Can the power of eminent domain be delegated to a private entity?

Answer: Yes. The power of eminent domain can be delegated to a private entity as long as the property is taken for public use and just compensation is paid.


Question: What does the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibit?

Answer: The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits laws that retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts.


Question: What is a bill of attainder?

Answer: A bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment on named individuals or on easily identifiable members of groups without a trial.


Question: What are ex post facto laws?

Answer: Ex post facto laws are laws that operate retroactively to: (1) make criminal an act that when done was not criminal; (2) aggravate a crime or increase the punishment; (3) change the rules of evidence to the detriment of criminal defendants as a class; or (4) alter the law of criminal procedure to deprive criminal defendants of a substantive right.


Question: A statute enacted by Congress names specific individuals and provides that they cannot hold any position of employment within the federal government because they are suspected terrorists. Is this an unconstitutional bill of attainder?

Answer: Yes. This is an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it singles out particular individuals for punishment without a trial.


Question: Is state legislation intended to deprive a state employee of a salary because of his objectionable conduct constitutional?

Answer: No. This is an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it inflicts punishment on a person without a trial.


Question: Does the Privileges and Immunities Clause apply to actions by a state that discriminate against its own residents?

Answer: No. The Privileges and Immunities Clause only applies to actions by a state that discriminate against citizens of other states.


Question: Does a state statute that discriminates against nonresidents violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV?

Answer: Yes. A state statute that discriminates against nonresidents violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV unless the statute is specifically aimed to address a problem caused by nonresidents.


Question: When is a requirement imposed by a municipality on the issuance of a building permit unconstitutional?

Answer: A requirement imposed by a municipality on the issuance of a building permit is unconstitutional if the municipality cannot demonstrate a rough proportionality between the requirement and the impact of the proposed action on the community.


Question: A person is charged under a state statute that makes blasphemy a criminal act but the statute is rarely enforced. Does the application of the statute deny him equal protection of the laws?

Answer: Yes. The application of the statute denies him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: Can a state enact a statute impairing the obligations of existing contracts?

Answer: No. The Contracts Clause of the Constitution prohibits a state from enacting a statute impairing the obligations of existing contracts.


Question: Is a one-year residency requirement to obtain a divorce constitutional?

Answer: Yes. A one-year residency requirement to obtain a divorce is constitutional as it promotes a compelling state interest.


Question: Does a police power argument outweigh a contracts clause violation argument?

Answer: Generally, yes. A police power argument will outweigh a contracts clause violation argument.


Question: What is the standard of review for residency requirements which impair the fundamental right to travel?

Answer: Residency requirements which impair the fundamental right to travel are subject to strict scrutiny.


Question: What is a Bill of Attainder?

Answer: A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a judicial trial on individuals who are designated either by name or in terms of past conduct.


Question: Is a newly passed law that impairs the rights of bondholders constitutional?

Answer: No. A newly passed law that impairs the rights of bondholders is in violation of the Contracts Clause.


Question: Does a commuter tax on non-resident taxpayers violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer: Yes. A commuter tax on non-resident taxpayers violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: What does the Contracts Clause do?

Answer: The Contracts Clause invalidates retroactive state laws that impair an existing contractual obligation. This never applies to the federal government.


Question: What rights does the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cover?

Answer: The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers the right to travel freely from state to state, the right to vote for national officers, the right to assemble, and the right to petition Congress for redress.


Question: What does the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 prohibit?

Answer: The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 prohibits state discrimination against non-residents with respect to essential activities or basic rights unless the discrimination is closely related to a substantial government purpose.


Question: Are corporations protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Comity clause, and the Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination?

Answer: No. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Comity clause, and the Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination are not applicable to corporations.


Question: Does the Privileges and Immunities Clause restrict the federal government?

Answer: No. The Privileges and Immunities Clause restricts states, not the federal government.


Question: What is the burden on the state when the government conditions a permit upon a public benefit?

Answer: When the government conditions a permit upon a public benefit, the burden is on the state to demonstrate the proportionality of the burden on the landowner to the benefit of the state.


Question: Can state legislation modify the rights and responsibilities in a private contract under the Contracts Clause?

Answer: Yes. The rights and responsibilities in a private contract can be modified by state legislation that serves an important and legitimate state public interest, is necessary for the achievement of that public interest, and is a reasonable non-substantial impairment of the contract.


Question: What does the Free Exercise Clause prohibit and what are the limitations of challenging a neutral law of general applicability?

Answer: The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from imposing restrictions on someone based on their religious beliefs. Such restrictions may only be imposed if they are necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. However, the Free Exercise Clause cannot be used to challenge a neutral law of general applicability. As long as the government has a rational basis for a neutral law of general applicability, and the law isn't specifically directed towards a religion, it is constitutional.


Question: If a state passes a law to sell property to a church significantly below fair market value, what must the Court consider?

Answer: The Court must consider whether such government action violates the Establishment Clause by reference to historical practices and understandings. For example, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause to exempt a specific religion from certain taxes or give that religion a significant benefit because no one religion should be given preference over the others.


Question: What must a challenger show to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause?

Answer: To establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, the challenger must show that the government action specifically targeted the religious practice in question.


Question: Does sponsoring or including prayer in public school events or ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Answer: Yes. Sponsoring or including prayer in public school events or ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even when the prayer is nondenominational and participation is voluntary.


Question: Does a nativity scene or another primarily-religious symbol standing by itself violate the Establishment Clause?

Answer: Yes. A nativity scene or another primarily-religious symbol that stands by itself and is not surrounded by other secular displays is regarded as having a primarily religious effect, and thus violates the Establishment Clause.


Question: Is a state law requiring an autopsy of anyone who dies suspiciously constitutional?

Answer: Yes. A state law requiring an autopsy of anyone who dies suspiciously is constitutional because it is a neutral, generally applicable statute and rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.


Question: Is federal aid to all teachers except religion teachers constitutional?

Answer: No. Federal aid to all teachers except religion teachers is an undue governmental entanglement in religious affairs because of the need to police the restriction.


Question: Is federal aid to religious colleges an undue governmental entanglement in religious affairs?

Answer: No. Federal aid to religious colleges is not an undue governmental entanglement in religious affairs because aid to one aspect of a religious college that is not extensively sectarian does not necessarily mean the college will spend its other resources for religious purposes.


Question: Is a sincere religious belief an adequate constitutional defense to cruelty to animals?

Answer: No. A sincere religious belief is not an adequate constitutional defense to cruelty to animals.


Question: Is government financial assistance given to post-secondary religious schools for secular use constitutional?

Answer: Yes. Government financial assistance given to post-secondary religious schools for secular use is constitutional, but it does not necessarily free the school to spend its other resources for religious purposes.


Question: Can the state distribute free textbooks to all schools, including private schools that offer religious instruction?

Answer: Yes. The distribution by the state of free textbooks to all schools, including private schools that offer religious instruction, may be constitutional if it is secular, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not entangle church and state.


Question: Can courts test the truth or falsity of religious beliefs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Answer: No. Testing in court the truth or falsity of religious beliefs is barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments; courts must not make any type of ecclesiastical determination.


Question: Are ordinances and zoning restrictions on the sizes and placement of outdoor advertisements within the police power of states and municipalities?

Answer: Yes. Ordinances and zoning restrictions on the sizes and placement of outdoor advertisements are well within the police power of states and municipalities. Regulations of a sign's physical structure and location are content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny, which requires that the regulation be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate and substantial interest, but it need not be the least restrictive or the least intrusive means of doing so.


Question: Is an ordinance that bans public nudity constitutional?

Answer: Yes. An ordinance that bans public nudity is constitutional as a valid content-neutral regulation because it furthers a substantial government interest in promoting moral norms and public order, is not related to suppressing free expression, and does not restrict First Amendment freedoms any more than necessary to promote the government's interest.


Question: Does a government contractor have the same First Amendment protections as a government employee?

Answer: Yes. A government contractor has the same First Amendment protections as a government employee. The political views or affiliations of a government contractor are not relevant to his work, and thus the contractor may not be retaliated against or penalized by government officials because of those political beliefs or associations.


Question: What scrutiny must a law satisfy if it regulates the content of speech?

Answer: If a law regulates the content of the speech (a content-based restriction), the law is presumptively unconstitutional and must satisfy strict scrutiny. This means the law must have a compelling governmental interest and use the least restrictive means to further the government's purpose. Content-neutral regulations are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, meaning the regulation has to be narrowly tailored to serve an important or substantial governmental interest and restrict First Amendment freedoms no more than is essential to further the interest.


Question: What scrutiny is applied to content-based restrictions on speech in a public forum?

Answer: Content-based restrictions on speech in a public forum are subject to strict scrutiny. The restriction must be: (1) narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest; and (2) there are no less restrictive means to accomplish the state's interest.


Question: Do members of the press have greater First Amendment rights than the general public?

Answer: No. Members of the press have no greater First Amendment rights than the general public. Members of the press are not immune from generally-applicable laws even if the application of the laws has a negative incidental effect on the press's ability to gather and report the news.


Question: Is a statute that prohibits all First Amendment activities in certain public places constitutional?

Answer: No. A statute that prohibits all First Amendment activities in certain public places is facially invalid as being substantially overbroad. The law not only regulates activity that might cause congestion or disrupt regular activities, but it also reaches expression that is not disruptive. No such absolute prohibition of speech can be justified by any conceivable governmental interest.


Question: What are the criteria for material to be regarded as obscene and fall outside of First and Fourteenth Amendment protections?

Answer: To be regarded as obscene, the material must: (1) have as its dominant theme the appeal to prurient sexual interests; (2) be patently offensive to local community standards; and (3) lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit. Mere portrayals of nudity are insufficient to justify a finding that a magazine or film is obscene as a matter of constitutional law.


Question: Can the government prohibit or punish group membership?

Answer: No. The government may not prohibit or punish group membership unless the law meets strict scrutiny. However, the government may punish an individual for membership in an organization engaged in unlawful activity if the person is actively affiliated with the group, knows of its illegal activities, and has specific intent of furthering those illegal activities.


Question: If a state's highest court decision rests independently on both state law and federal constitutional law, can the U.S. Supreme Court properly review that decision?

Answer: No. The U.S. Supreme Court may not properly review that decision.


Question: Is a suit brought by a state resident against an instate corporation in federal district court proper and within the jurisdiction of an Article III court?

Answer: No. The suit is improper and not within the jurisdiction of an Article III court.


Question: Can Congress restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III?

Answer: Yes. Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III.


Question: Is it proper for the Senate to appoint a commission to adjudicate a boundary dispute between two states?

Answer: No. It is improper for the Senate to appoint a commission to adjudicate a boundary dispute between two states.


Question: What is the general rule for federal courts when presented with an unsettled question of state law?

Answer: Generally, a federal court will abstain when presented with an unsettled question of state law.


Question: Can states be sued in federal court contrary to the Eleventh Amendment?

Answer: Yes, but ONLY on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.


Question: Does Congress have the power to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Answer: Yes. Congress has the power to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Article III provides that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction under such regulations as Congress makes.


Question: Can Congress require the U.S. Supreme Court to directly review state court decisions?

Answer: Yes. Congress has the power to require the U.S. Supreme Court to directly review state court decisions.


Question: Can Congress limit all avenues for Supreme Court review of federal constitutional issues?

Answer: No. Congress may not limit all avenues for Supreme Court review of federal constitutional issues.


Question: Does filing suits directly with the Supreme Court violate its original jurisdiction?

Answer: Yes. Filing suits directly with the Supreme Court violates its original jurisdiction because a suit has to first be decided by a lower state or federal court.


Question: Are Article III court judges entitled to lifetime tenure?

Answer: Yes. Article III court judges (such as district, court of appeals, and U.S. supreme court judges) are entitled to lifetime tenure.


Question: Must a plaintiff bringing action in state trial court exhaust all state appellate remedies before seeking review in federal court?

Answer: Yes. A plaintiff bringing action in state trial court must exhaust all state appellate remedies before seeking review in federal court, even when federal issues are involved.


Question: Does the Eleventh Amendment generally prohibit a federal court from hearing a private party's claim against its own or another state's government?

Answer: Yes. The Eleventh Amendment generally prohibits a federal court from hearing a private party's claim against its own or another state's government.


Question: Are the Courts or Congress empowered by the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of laws?

Answer: The Courts, not Congress, are empowered by the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of laws.


Question: Can a state be sued in federal court by its own citizens without its consent?

Answer: No. A state cannot be sued in federal court by its own citizens unless it consents due to its Eleventh Amendment immunity.


Question: If a city plans to upgrade city-owned water meters without giving notice to homeowners and without their consent, and a homeowner refuses to provide access and sues the city on due process grounds, what happens if the city then passes a new law requiring both prior notice and property-owner consent before the upgrade?

Answer: The homeowner's case should be dismissed as moot because the matter at issue has been resolved and leaves no live dispute for a court to resolve.


Question: A dispute arises between the President and Congress regarding the constitutionality of a congressional statute. Is this a justiciable question suitable for resolution in federal court?

Answer: Yes. This is a justiciable question suitable for resolution in federal court because the Court may decide cases involving sensitive issues of foreign affairs when the issue is the constitutionality of a statute.


Question: Will a federal court rule on a matter in controversy if the matter is a political question to be resolved by one or both of the other two branches of government?

Answer: No. A federal court will not rule on a matter in controversy if the matter is a political question to be resolved by one or both of the other two branches of government. However, interbranch disputes involving foreign affairs are not subject to the political question doctrine when they concern the validity of a federal statute.


Question: If a plaintiff sues to enjoin the issuance of a contract to the prevailing bidder but fails to obtain a temporary restraining order and the contract is awarded to the prevailing bidder, what happens to the plaintiff's suit?

Answer: The plaintiff's suit will be dismissed because it is now moot.


Question: Must a real case or controversy exist at all stages of the proceeding for a federal court to hear it?

Answer: Yes. A real case or controversy must exist at all stages of the proceeding, not merely when the complaint is filed. If the action complained of ceases or if effective relief is no longer available, a case may become moot because further legal proceedings would have no effect.


Question: A state court finds a law violates both the state and federal constitutions. Will the Supreme Court review the case?

Answer: No. The Supreme Court will not review the case because even if the Supreme Court overturned the interpretation of federal law, the holding would still stand on state law grounds.


Question: For the Supreme Court to review a state court's decision, must there not be an independent and adequate State law ground of decision?

Answer: Yes. For the Supreme Court to review a state court's decision, there must not be an independent and adequate State law ground of decision. If a state court decision rests on two grounds, one state law and the other federal law, if the Supreme Court's reversal of the federal law ground will not change the result in the case, the Supreme Court cannot hear it.


Question: In a suit for a declaratory judgment or a pre-enforcement injunction against a regulation or law, what is required for the issue to be ripe for review?

Answer: There must be a ripe threat of injury and not just a generalized grievance based on speculative harm, or else the issue is premature and not ripe for review.


Question: What is required for a claim to be ripe for review?

Answer: A claim is 'ripe' when the facts of the case have matured into an existing substantial controversy warranting judicial intervention. A suit is not ripe where the injury has not yet occurred, the harm is speculative in nature, or the issues for the record are not fully developed or fit for adjudication.


Question: An ambassador of a foreign country facing civil war sues the U.S. President to overturn the President's executive order recognizing a rebel force as the official government of the foreign country and commanding the ambassador to immediately leave the US. Will a federal court hear the ambassador's action?

Answer: No. A federal court will dismiss the ambassador's action as a nonjusticiable political question since the court has no judicially manageable standards to apply to the President's foreign policy decisions as the President has broad foreign policy powers including his exclusive power to recognize foreign governments.


Question: Under the political question doctrine, will the federal courts adjudicate allegations of constitutional violations with respect to partisan gerrymandering?

Answer: No. Under the political question doctrine, the federal courts will not adjudicate any allegations of constitutional violations with respect to partisan gerrymandering.


Question: Under the political question doctrine, will the federal courts adjudicate allegations of constitutional violations with respect to the impeachment and removal process?

Answer: No. Under the political question doctrine, the federal courts will not adjudicate any allegations of constitutional violations with respect to the impeachment and removal process.


Question: Under the political question doctrine, will the federal courts adjudicate allegations of constitutional violations with respect to the President's conduct of foreign policy?

Answer: No. Under the political question doctrine, the federal courts will not adjudicate any allegations of constitutional violations with respect to the President's conduct of foreign policy.


Question: If town residents sue a state agency because the agency might select the town as the future location of a toxic landfill, what happens to the suit?

Answer: The suit will be dismissed because the case is not ripe for a decision on the merits. The town can only sue once it is certain that it will be selected.


Question: What is the purpose of the ripeness doctrine?

Answer: The ripeness doctrine is intended to prevent the courts from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies and to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.


Question: Can state courts afford greater protection than the U.S. Constitution for individual rights?

Answer: Yes. State courts can afford greater protection than the U.S. Constitution for individual rights by establishing a higher state constitutional standard, and when a state court decision is clearly based on state law that is both adequate and independent, federal courts will not review the decision.


Question: Is a lawsuit in federal court to stop a federal agency's proposed adoption of rules ripe for adjudication?

Answer: No. A lawsuit in federal court to stop a federal agency's proposed adoption of rules is not ripe for adjudication and must be dismissed since it is not yet a case or controversy.


Question: What is required for a plaintiff to have standing to sue in federal court?

Answer: A plaintiff must have an interest in the invalidation of a statute and must show injury in fact and causation. Mere allegations of injury or public harm are insufficient.