Flow Chart Samples
When a federal court is exercising diversity jurisdiction, it must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits. Erie Railroad v. Thomkins, clarifying the Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. §1652). A state statute setting forth a cause of action is a clear example of state substantive law. Less obvious examples of substantive law [...]
Category : Civ Pro Flow Charts
A. Compensatory Damages The Plaintiff (non-breaching party) is put in the position he/she/it would be in if promise had been performed. 1. Expectation Damages Expectation damages are designed to give the Plaintiff (non-breaching party) the “benefit of the bargain.” This means compensating the Plaintiff so that he is placed in the position he would have [...]
Category : Contracts Flow Charts
A. Judgment as a Matter of Law: Rule 50(a) The motion formerly known as “motion for a directed verdict.” Some state courts still call it that. 1. The moving party must specify: a. the judgment sought, and b. the facts and law on which it is entitled to the judgment. 2. Standard: there must be no [...]
Category : Civ Pro Flow Charts
A. Prerequisites: Rule 23(a). All four requirements must be met. 1. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 2. There are questions of law or fact common to the class. 3. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. 4. [...]
Category : Civ Pro Flow Charts
Most courts hold manufacturers and suppliers of defective products strictly liable for injuries caused by the defect. Note that anyone in the chain of distribution may be held liable, as long as they are commercial suppliers of the product. Those who occasionally sell products (i.e., selling a used car) will not be held strictly liable. [...]
Category : Torts Flow Charts
a. The Basics Usually, a manufacturing defect is a flaw in an individual product, which does not meet the standards of the manufacturer. The Plaintiff must prove: i. The product was in a defective condition that made it unreasonably dangerous for intended use, and ii. the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control. [...]
Category : Torts Flow Charts
2. Design Defects a. Risk-Utility Test i. The product design is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect, and ii. The risks inherent in the design outweigh its benefits. Balance A against B. A. The benefit of present design, including 1 . whether there is a reasonable alternative design, and 2. the costs of the reasonable [...]
Category : Torts Flow Charts
1. Assumption of Risk is a defense. Defendant must show that the Plaintiff a. knew of the risk, and b. unreasonably continued to use the product. 2. Comparative Fault a. Restatement/California: Use comparative fault rules to reduce Plaintiff’s recovery (compare P’s fault to D’s). b. Many states will not apply comparative fault when the Plaintiff’s [...]
Category : Torts Flow Charts
