Question 1

A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states could be tried in federal or California courts using the same law.

Accepted Answer

Since the contract was signed in California and California law was used, both federal and California courts would have jurisdiction and would apply the same California law.

Question 2

Venue of a lawsuit concerns the fairness of the location in which a case is tried.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. Venue refers to the geographical location or jurisdiction in which a lawsuit can be heard, and it relates to the fairness of choosing that location for the case proceedings.

Question 3

Fact Pattern 2-1
Yoshi, a Japanese citizen working in Atlanta for his Tokyo firm, decided to rent an airplane and fly himself to the Annual Catfish and Zydeco festival in Thibodaux, Louisiana. He rented a small plane to fly there. Over Alabama, thunderstorms formed. Because Yoshi was not trained to fly by instruments, he decided to land at the next airport.
As he searched for a runway, Yoshi heard a loud clank followed by silence as the engine died. He tried to land in a field but crashed. While recovering in a rehabilitation center in California, Yoshi filed suit there against the Atlanta Airport and the owners of the airplane, alleging that they were negligent in their maintenance.
-Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. Yoshi may obtain personal jurisdiction over the Atlanta Airport by having the court seize a bank account the airport holds in California.

Accepted Answer

Having a bank account in California does not establish sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over the Atlanta Airport in California.

Question 4

In Erie v. Tompkins, where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that federal common law, as first announced in Swift v. Tyson, had to be applied to cases where there was diversity of citizenship, forcing the case into federal court.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held in Erie v. Tompkins that federal common law did not apply in diversity cases and that state law must be applied in federal court. This overruled the previous ruling in Swift v. Tyson.

Question 5

Traditionally, in contracts cases, the conflict-of-law rule is that the law of the state in which a contract was breached will determine the validity of the contract.

Accepted Answer

Traditionally, in contracts cases, the conflict-of-law rule often applies the law of the state in which the contract was made (lex loci contractus) to determine its validity, not necessarily where it was breached.

Question 6

The doctrine of forum non conveniens is closely related to the issue of venue.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of forum non conveniens deals with the issue of whether a court is a convenient or appropriate forum for a case, while venue is the geographic location where a case is heard. However, the two concepts are related in that the doctrine of forum non conveniens can be used as a tool to change the venue of a case to a more appropriate forum.

Question 7

A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states could be tried in federal court using federal law or in a California court using California law.

Accepted Answer

A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 does not meet the federal jurisdictional amount requirement of over $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction, so it cannot be tried in federal court using federal law. It would be tried in a California court using California law.

Question 8

Some states require that no matter what the dispute, all cases must be tried under the law of that state. No conflict-of-law tests will be applied.

Accepted Answer

States often apply conflict-of-law principles to determine which jurisdiction's laws should apply in a particular case, especially when the dispute involves parties or elements from different states or countries.

Question 9

The case Erie v. Tompkins, involving a man hit by a train in Pennsylvania, holds that federal courts must apply either state common law or state statutory law in resolving disputes between citizens of different states.

Accepted Answer

This is the holding of the case Erie v. Tompkins. It overturned the previous practice of federal common law and instead required federal courts to apply the law of the state in which they were located.

Question 10

Fact Pattern 2-1
Yoshi, a Japanese citizen working in Atlanta for his Tokyo firm, decided to rent an airplane and fly himself to the Annual Catfish and Zydeco festival in Thibodaux, Louisiana. He rented a small plane to fly there. Over Alabama, thunderstorms formed. Because Yoshi was not trained to fly by instruments, he decided to land at the next airport.
As he searched for a runway, Yoshi heard a loud clank followed by silence as the engine died. He tried to land in a field but crashed. While recovering in a rehabilitation center in California, Yoshi filed suit there against the Atlanta Airport and the owners of the airplane, alleging that they were negligent in their maintenance.
-Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. Only Yoshi has the ability to remove the case he brought in a California state court to a federal court.

Accepted Answer

Under the doctrine of "forum non conveniens," courts may dismiss a case if a more suitable forum exists. In this case, the more appropriate forum would be a court in Georgia or Alabama since that is where the events leading to the lawsuit occurred. Only defendants can remove a case from state court to federal court, not plaintiffs.

Question 11

A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states could be tried in federal court using federal law or in a California court using California law.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A suit involving a dispute for $1...

Question 12

Courts often apply a "significant interest" test in conflicts-of-law cases to determine which court should have jurisdiction over a dispute.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. The "significant interest" test is a commonly used method for determining which court should have jurisdiction over a dispute in conflicts-of-law cases. This test analyzes the various interests and connections of the parties involved in order to determine which jurisdiction has a significant interest in the outcome of the case.

Question 13

A conflict-of-law arises when incidents occur that have taken place in more than one state or entirely in another state from the one in which the lawsuit was filed.

Accepted Answer

A conflict-of-law, also known as a choice-of-law issue, arises when there is a dispute or legal action involving multiple states or foreign jurisdictions. This creates a conflict between the laws of those different jurisdictions. The resolution of such a conflict requires a court to determine which law applies to the case.

Question 14

In Erie v. Tompkins, where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that the matter must be tried under federal law because the law of New York and Pennsylvania were in conflict.

Accepted Answer

In Erie v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court held that there was no federal common law and that state law must be followed in cases where there was no direct contradiction with federal law. Therefore, Tompkins' case had to be tried under Pennsylvania's law, not federal law.

Question 15

A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California, for business to be done in California, under California law, with parties from two different states could only be tried in California courts.

Accepted Answer

The suit could potentially be tried in federal court due to diversity jurisdiction, as the parties are from different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000.

Question 16

The doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only in federal district courts, not state trial courts.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of forum non conveniens can apply in both federal and state courts, but the specific standards and procedures for invoking the doctrine may vary depending on the jurisdiction.

Question 17

A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states could be tried in federal court using California law or in a California court using California law.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A suit involving a dispute for $45,000...

Question 18

In Erie v. Tompkins, where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that federal common law, as first announced in Swift v. Tyson, was to be abandoned in favor of state common law.

Accepted Answer

In Erie v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court held that federal common law, as first announced in Swift v. Tyson, was to be abandoned in favor of state common law.

Question 19

The venue of a case may be changed due to excessive publicity about the matter.

Accepted Answer

Excessive publicity about a case may influence the impartiality of the jurors and affect the defendant's right to a fair trial. As a result, the venue of the case may be changed to ensure a fair and impartial trial. This is known as a change of venue.

Question 20

A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states would be tried in a California court using California law.

Accepted Answer

The suit involves a contract signed in California under California law, therefore it would be tried in a California court using California law.

Quiz 2: The Court Systems