Question 1

In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania,the Supreme Court held that:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins that federal common law did not exist in diversity-of-citizenship cases. This means that in such cases, federal courts must apply state law instead of creating their own federal common law.

Question 2

According to the Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania,the doctrine of Swift v.Tyson,which held that federal courts exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship need not,in matters of general jurisprudence,apply [the common law] of the state as declared by its highest court,introduced:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins held that the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson introduced discrimination against state citizens by non-state citizens, as it allowed federal courts to ignore state common law, potentially leading to different outcomes for state and non-state citizens in similar cases.

Question 3

State courts often have jurisdiction to hear federal question cases.An exception to this rule exists when the:

Accepted Answer

Congress has the power to determine the jurisdiction of state courts over federal laws. If Congress declares that states do not have jurisdiction over a specific federal law, then state courts cannot hear cases involving that law. This is based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, choice C is the best answer.

Question 4

State courts often have jurisdiction to hear federal question cases.An exception to this rule exists when the:

Accepted Answer

When Congress declares that states do not have jurisdiction over a specific federal law, state courts are not allowed to hear federal question cases related to that law. This is known as preemption, where federal law supersedes state law.

Question 5

Parties to a suit may prefer state or federal court because:

Accepted Answer

All of the other choices may play a role. In some cases, the applicable law may be more favorable in state court rather than federal court, while in other cases it may be the opposite. Similarly, the procedure and rules of evidence may differ between the two courts, and parties may find one court more advantageous in this regard. Judge selection is typically random, but it is possible that one court or the other may have a judicial reputation that could influence which court is preferred. Finally, local politics may play a role in some cases, particularly if the subject matter of the suit is a matter of local concern. Ultimately, the choice of court will depend on the specific circumstances of each case.

Question 6

A defendant may not remove a case to federal court if:

Accepted Answer

The answer of A defendant may not remove a case...

Question 7

Concurrent jurisdiction is when the:

Accepted Answer

Concurrent jurisdiction refers to situations where two or more courts from different systems simultaneously have jurisdiction over a specific case. None of the provided choices accurately describe this concept.

Question 8

In a case involving state law that could be tried in state court,but that has been moved to federal court.The federal court will:

Accepted Answer

The answer of In a case involving state law that...

Question 9

A defendant may not remove a case to federal court if:

Accepted Answer

The defendant may not remove a case to federal court if the plaintiff has filed suit in the defendant's home state court. This is because the defendant cannot argue that the case should be heard in federal court due to diversity jurisdiction, as the plaintiff has already opted to file the case in the defendant's home state court.

Question 10

In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania:

Accepted Answer

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins established that in cases not governed by federal statute, federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law, overturning the prior federal common law approach.

Question 11

Right of removal allows:

Accepted Answer

Right of removal refers to the legal ability of a defendant to move a lawsuit from state court to federal court under certain conditions, none of the provided options accurately describe this legal concept.

Question 12

Right of removal is intended to:

Accepted Answer

The right of removal is intended to protect out-of-state defendants from state courts that might favor their own citizens. This allows defendants in civil cases to move the case from state court to federal court, where potential biases may be less likely to occur. It does not pertain to protecting out-of-state plaintiffs or to competition between attorneys.

Question 13

A plaintiff files suit in state court.The defendant wants the case tried in federal court.Both courts can properly hear the case.If the case goes to federal court it is based on:

Accepted Answer

The right of removal allows a defendant to move a case from state court to federal court if the case involves a federal question or if the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Both courts could properly hear the case, but the defendant wants it tried in federal court. Therefore, the correct answer is D) right of removal.

Question 14

Concurrent jurisdiction is when the:

Accepted Answer

Concurrent jurisdiction exists when both federal and state court systems have jurisdiction over a case. This usually occurs when the case involves a federal question or when both state and federal laws are relevant to the case.

Question 15

In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania:

Accepted Answer

In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state common law, rather than federal common law. This overruled the previous approach in Swift v. Tyson, where federal courts had been applying federal common law in diversity cases. Therefore, choice A is the correct answer as it reflects the holding of the court in this case.

Question 16

In Erie Railroad v.Tompkins,where Tompkins was hit by a New York train while in Pennsylvania,regarding the application of common law in a diversity of citizenship case in federal district court,the Supreme Court decided that:

Accepted Answer

The answer of In Erie Railroad v.Tompkins,where Tompkins was hit...

Question 17

In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania,the Supreme Court reversed the decision for Tompkins by the court of appeals because it held that:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held that applying the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson (which allowed federal courts to create common law independent of state law) made it impossible to ensure equal protection of the law, since it allowed federal courts to apply different rules to the same cases depending on the jurisdiction. This conflicted with the idea of a uniform national law. As a result, the Court abolished the doctrine and held that federal courts should look to state law to decide cases.

Question 18

In a case involving state law that could be tried in state court,but that has been moved to federal court.The federal court will:

Accepted Answer

The answer of In a case involving state law that...

Question 19

Right of removal allows:

Accepted Answer

The right of removal allows defendants to have a case removed to a federal court if concurrent jurisdiction exists. This means that if the case falls under both state and federal jurisdiction, the defendant can choose to have it heard in federal court instead.

Question 20

Right of removal is intended to:

Accepted Answer

The answer of Right of removal is intended to:
...

Quiz 2: The Court Systems

In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania,the Supreme Court held that:

State courts often have jurisdiction to hear federal question cases.An exception to this rule exists when the:

State courts often have jurisdiction to hear federal question cases.An exception to this rule exists when the:

Parties to a suit may prefer state or federal court because:

A defendant may not remove a case to federal court if:

Concurrent jurisdiction is when the:

In a case involving state law that could be tried in state court,but that has been moved to federal court.The federal court will:

A defendant may not remove a case to federal court if:

In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania:

Right of removal allows:

Right of removal is intended to:

A plaintiff files suit in state court.The defendant wants the case tried in federal court.Both courts can properly hear the case.If the case goes to federal court it is based on:

Concurrent jurisdiction is when the:

In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania:

In Erie Railroad v.Tompkins,where Tompkins was hit by a New York train while in Pennsylvania,regarding the application of common law in a diversity of citizenship case in federal district court,the Supreme Court decided that:

In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins,where Tompkins sued a New York company that owned a train that hit him in Pennsylvania,the Supreme Court reversed the decision for Tompkins by the court of appeals because it held that:

In a case involving state law that could be tried in state court,but that has been moved to federal court.The federal court will:

Right of removal allows:

Right of removal is intended to: