Civil Pro MBE Questions

When juror misconduct is alleged, a nonjuror may not testify as to: A Declarations made by a juror to him B Seeing the jurors conduct experiments relevant to the case C Seeing a juror reading a newspaper article about the case

A. A nonjuror is not permitted to testify as to declarations made by a juror to him. However, a nonjuror may testify about evidence outside of this limit (such as when he sees the jurors conducting experiments relevant to the case or a juror reading a newspaper article about the case). J0909 Additional Learning

During a trial, a motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") may be filed: A At any time before submission of the case to the jury B No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment C At any time before a verdict is entered

A. During a trial, a motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") may be filed at any time before submission of the case to the jury. The moving party must specify in its motion the judgment sought and the law and facts on which the party is entitled to judgment. Note, however, that the nonmoving party must have been heard on the issue. The answer "at any time before a verdict is entered" is incorrect because the motion is unavailable once the case is submitted to the jury. The answer "no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment" is incorrect because the motion is unavailable once the case is submitted to the jury. It should be noted that this is the filing timeframe for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JNOV"). J0917 Additional Learning

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is considered to be a citizen of: A Every state in which it is incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business B The first state in which it was incorporated and every state in which it does substantial business C The first state in which it was incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business D Every state in which it is incorporated and every state in which it does substantial business

A. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business. Thus, it is possible for a corporation to have two or more state citizenships for diversity purposes. The rule for a corporation is that, in addition to its states of incorporation, a corporation is a citizen of the one state in which it has its principal place of business. It is not a citizen of every state in which it does substantial business. Likewise, in addition to the principal place of business, a corporation is deemed to be the citizen of every state in which it is incorporated, not just the first state in which it was incorporated. Thus, the choices incorporating those standards are incorrect statements of a corporation's citizenship for diversity purposes.

Generally, with respect to issues of fact, a federal court will _______ when state law assigns the issue to the judge to be decided. A Follow the federal practice of submitting issues of fact to a jury B Follow the state's practice C Follow the state's practice unless there is a compelling reason not to do so

A. Generally, with respect to issues of fact, a federal court will follow the federal practice of submitting issues of fact to a jury when state law assigns the issue to the judge to be decided. Because the federal courts follow the federal practice, they do not follow the state's practice. Thus, it is also incorrect to say that the federal courts follow the state's practice unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. J0903B Additional Learning

If a defending party timely serves a formal offer to have judgment entered against it on specific terms, it is deemed a valid offer unless it: A Explicitly or implicitly excludes costs B Asks the other party to claim partial liability C Explicitly or implicitly includes costs

A. If a defending party timely serves a formal offer to have judgment entered against it on specific terms, it is deemed a valid offer unless it explicitly or implicitly excludes costs. Hence, the validity of an offer in judgment is not affected if it asks the other party to claim partial liability or explicitly or implicitly includes costs. J0914A Additional Learning

If there are sufficient facts to resolve an issue, a trial judge may enter a judgment as a matter of law against a party, provided that: A The party has been fully heard on the issue and the trial is a nonjury trial B The trial is a nonjury trial C The party has been fully heard on the issue

A. If there are sufficient facts to resolve an issue, a trial judge may enter a judgment as a matter of law against a party, provided that the party has been fully heard on the issue and the trial is a nonjury trial. In a jury trial, the standard is different, i.e., the court must find that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the party on that issue. This is because in a nonjury trial, the judge acts as a factfinder. Once all the evidence is submitted on a particular issue, there is no reason for the judge to delay in acting as the factfinder. That the party has been fully heard on the issue is not sufficient—it also must be a nonjury trial for the "sufficient facts to resolve an issue" standard to apply. Similarly, that the trial is a nonjury trial is not sufficient—the party against whom the judgment as a matter of law is entered must have been fully heard on the issue. J0920 Additional Learning

Select the statement that best describes the relationship between removal and venue: A In a properly removed case, venue is proper in the federal court of the state where the case was pending, even if venue would have been improper had the plaintiff originally filed the action in the federal district court of that state B In a properly removed case, venue is proper in the federal court of the state where the case was pending, but only if venue would have been proper had the plaintiff originally filed the action in the federal district court of that state C Venue and removal have no correlation

A. In a properly removed case, venue is proper in the federal court of the state where the case was pending, even if venue would have been improper had the plaintiff originally filed the action in the federal district court of that state. This is because venue for an action removed under section 1441(a) lies in the federal district court "embracing the place where such [state] action is pending." Hence, it is not correct to state that venue and removal have no correlation.

In federal courts, state law is _______ when determining the sufficiency of the evidence to create a jury issue. A Not considered B Controlling C Considered but not controlling

A. In federal courts, state law is not considered when determining the sufficiency of the evidence to create a jury issue. It is neither controlling, nor considered but not controlling. In other words, the right to a jury trial in federal court is governed entirely by federal law, without regard to whether the case would be tried to a jury in state court. J0903C Additional Learning

As a general rule, a judgment from a federal district court can be enforced: A Fourteen days after it is entered B Immediately C After final disposition of all post-trial motions D Ten days after it is entered

A. No executions on judgments is allowed for 14 days after entry except injunctions and receiverships, which are not held up unless otherwise ordered by the court. Thereafter, judgments become enforceable during the pendency of post-trial motions unless a court otherwise orders in its discretion and on such conditions for the security of the adverse party it deems proper. The court can also require that the bond satisfy the costs, interest, and damages for delay, should the appeal be dismissed or affirmed. J0919 Additional Learning

Refusal of a request to allow the jury to reconsider an improper but correctable verdict (or to order a new trial) is: A Considered an abuse of discretion by the court B Within the discretion of the court C Within the discretion of the court unless the verdict is irreconcilable

A. Refusal of a request to allow the jury to reconsider an improper but correctable verdict or to order a new trial is considered an abuse of discretion by the court. Refusing this request is not within the discretion of the court whether or not the verdict is irreconcilable. J0908B Additional Learning

While working on a site in State A, a State B construction worker was standing near a steel crane when the crane's boom swung near a high tension power line. The worker was electrocuted and severely injured. The worker filed an action in federal district court against the power company that owns the power lines. The action seeks $500,000 and alleges that the power company's negligent construction, maintenance, and operation of the power lines caused the injury. The power company is a State A corporation and all its operations are in State A. The power company filed a third-party complaint against the owner-operator of the crane, a State B citizen. The third-party claim is based on state law and alleges that the crane's owner-operator is liable to the power company for any liability the power company has to the injured worker. The worker amended his complaint to add a state law negligence claim for $500,000 against the crane's owner-operator. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the worker's claim against the owner-operator of the crane? A No, because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the worker's claim against the owner-operator of the crane. B Yes, because the claim arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the worker's claim against the power company. C Yes, because all claims asserted arose from a common nucleus of operative fact. D Yes, because the State B worker has sufficient contacts with State A.

A. The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the worker's claim against the owner-operator of the crane. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is available when (i) there is complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant; and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The citizenship of an individual is his domicile, and a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business. Here, the worker is from State B and the power company is a State A corporation with all its operations (and therefore its principal place of business) in State A. The plaintiff's claim is for $500,000, satisfying the amount in controversy requirement. Accordingly, there is diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this claim. Once one claim satisfies the requirements for original federal subject matter jurisdiction, the court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that derive from the same common nucleus of fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in a single judicial proceeding. However, for cases based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction is not available for claims against persons made parties under the impleader rules when use of supplemental jurisdiction would be contrary to the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. In the instant case, the owner-operator shares state citizenship with the worker and was made a party when the power company impleaded him on a claim for indemnity. Because a claim by the worker against the owner-operator would circumvent the complete diversity requirement, supplemental jurisdiction is not available for that claim. Hence, (A) is correct. (B) is incorrect because supplemental jurisdiction cannot be used to override the requirements of diversity jurisdiction, as discussed above. (C) is a too broad of a statement. There are some instances in which supplemental jurisdiction cannot be used, such as to support a claim by a plaintiff against a person made a party under the impleader rules (as is the case in this question). (D) is an incorrect statement of law, and irrelevant. First, subject matter jurisdiction (the power to hear a case) must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction (the power over a particular defendant). A court technically may have subject matter jurisdiction (e.g., diversity jurisdiction is satisfied) without having personal jurisdiction over one of the defendants because the defendant has insufficient contacts with the jurisdiction. Furthermore, a plaintiff consents to the personal jurisdiction of the court by filing suit. Here, that means the State B worker submitted to personal jurisdiction in State A by filing suit.

On August 1, the plaintiff, a resident of State A, sued two defendants in State A for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. One defendant is a citizen of State A while the other is a citizen of State B. The lawsuit claimed damages of $500,000. The plaintiff quickly reached a settlement agreement with the defendant from State A, and the court dismissed that defendant by order on August 16. The order is served on the remaining defendant on August 20. On September 18, the remaining defendant files a notice of removal with the court, which the plaintiff opposes. How should the court rule on the defendant's notice of removal? A For the remaining defendant, because she filed her notice of removal within 30 days after she discovered the case had become removable. B For the remaining defendant, because there are no time restrictions on removing a case to federal court. C For the plaintiff, because a plaintiff has the right to choose his own forum. D For the plaintiff, because more than 30 days have passed since the case became removable.

A. The court should rule for the remaining defendant. There are essentially two time restrictions on removal of a diversity case to federal court: (1) a case based on diversity must be removed within 30 days of the defendant's receipt of a copy of the paper (order, motion, etc.) that makes the case removable; but (2) in no event may the case be removed more than one year after it was commenced in state court. [28 U.S.C. §1446] Here, it is the 30-day time limit that is in question; i.e., specifically, whether the 30-day clock starts to tick on August 16 (when the case became removable) or on August 20 (when the defendant learned that the case became removable). As stated above, it is the latter. The clock starts to tick when the defendant learns by service of any paper that the case has become removable. Because she requested removal within this 30-day period, the court should rule in favor of the remaining defendant.

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed suit against the defendant, also a citizen of State A, in federal district court, alleging that the defendant had failed to perform a contract to provide 1,000 fully automatic machine guns. The defendant claimed that a recently enacted federal statute made the manufacture of fully automatic machine guns illegal. Does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction? A No, because no federal question has been presented and the requirements of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction have not been met. B No, unless the plaintiff moves to another state after filing suit. C Yes, because a federal statute has been enacted, thereby presenting a federal question. D Yes, if the value of 1,000 fully automatic machine guns exceeds $75,000.

A. The federal district court does not have diversity jurisdiction because both parties are citizens of State A. The court does not have federal question jurisdiction because the recently enacted federal statute arises only in anticipation of the defendant's defense. This is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. (Rationale: If, for example, the defendant relied on some other defense or defaulted instead of defending on the basis of the new federal statute, no federal question would ever be involved in the case. [See Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)]) (B) is incorrect because citizenship of the parties is determined at the time suit is filed. Assuming the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement could be met, the plaintiff would have had to move prior to filing suit to be able to invoke diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (C) is incorrect because a federal question has not been presented, as described above. (D) is incorrect because, even if the plaintiff's claim exceeds $75,000, diversity of citizenship would not exist because the plaintiff and defendant are both citizens of State A.

In order to satisfy federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must appear in: A The plaintiff's complaint B Either the plaintiff's complaint or the defendant's answer C Either the plaintiff's complaint or the defendant's answer, counterclaim, or cross-claim D Either the plaintiff's complaint or the defendant's answer or counterclaim

A. Well pleaded complaint

When a plaintiff has both federal and state-based claims against a defendant and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, the federal court has: A Discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim if the two claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding B Discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim, regardless of whether the two claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact C No discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim; it must transfer all claims to state court D No discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim; it must do so

A.In some cases, the plaintiff will have both federal and state claims against the defendant. Although there may be no diversity, the federal court has discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the claim based on state law if the two claims are so related that they are part of the same case or controversy, which essentially means that they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding. A federal court does not have discretion to exercise jurisdiction if the claims are unrelated. Hence, it is not correct that the court has discretion regardless of whether the claims are related. The court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in such a scenario is discretionary. Thus, both answer choices asserting that the court has no discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim are incorrect. It need not exercise discretion, and it need not transfer the claims to state court.

For claim preclusion (res judicata) to apply, it is not necessary that the judgment be: A Valid B Satisfied C On the merits D Final

B.

A taxi crashed into a telephone pole. The taxi's passenger commenced a negligence action against the taxi driver, properly serving the taxi driver with the summons and complaint. The taxi driver, being an independent contractor, turned the summons and complaint over to his insurance company. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the passenger, finding that the taxi driver's negligence was the sole cause of the crash. The passenger then commenced a second action, this time against the owner of the taxi. The passenger alleged that the taxi driver's negligence was the sole cause of the crash and that the owner was vicariously liable. The passenger immediately moved for partial summary judgment against the owner based on the finding of the taxi driver's negligence in the prior action. If the court denies the motion, what is the most likely reason? response - incorrect A Claim preclusion bars the passenger's claim against the owner. B The taxi owner is not precluded from litigating the issue of whether the taxi driver was negligent. C The passenger waived her right to sue the owner by not joining the owner as a defendant in the first action. D The taxi driver is a necessary and indispensable party to the second action.

B. (B) The taxi owner is not precluded from litigating that issue. For a party to be bound by issue preclusion, (i) there must have been a final judgment; (ii) the issue must have been actually litigated and determined; (iii) the issue must have been essential to the judgment; and (iv) the party to be bound by the prior judgment must have been a party to the prior action or in privity with a party to the prior action. Here, it is the last element that is missing. The taxi owner was not a party to the prior action, and there is no indication that the taxi owner was in privity with the taxi driver. (A) is incorrect for a similar reason. Claim preclusion applies when the earlier case and the later case are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant (or where a party in the later case is in privity with a party in the earlier case). Here, the claim is against a different defendant who was not in privity with the previous defendant. (C) and (D) are incorrect because there generally is no requirement to join joint tortfeasors in a single action. (The exception being if state law requires it.) The risk the plaintiff runs in such a situation is that she loses the first case and thereafter might be bound by issue preclusion in subsequent actions.QUESTION ID: MJ151

Is a federal district court required to honor the judgment of another federal district court? A No, because The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution does not extend to federal judgments in federal court B Yes, under The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, as implemented by federal statute C Yes, under The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, on its own

B. A federal district court is required to honor the judgment of another federal district court under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, as implemented by federal statute. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, on its own, is incorrect, because it is only applicable to state court judgments that are sought to be enforced in other state courts. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution does not extend to federal judgments in federal court is incorrect, because it has been extended by federal statute and would apply in this instance. Additional Learning

A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law may be filed: A No later than 14 days after the entry of judgment B No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment C At any time before submission of the case to the jury D At any time before entry of judgment

B. A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (formerly Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict ("JNOV")) may be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Answers that provide that the motion may be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment or at any time before the entry of judgment are incorrect because the moving party has 28 days from the entry of judgment to make a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. At any time before submission of the case to the jury is incorrect because that is the standard for a motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL"), not a renewed motion for same. J0918 Additional Learning

Federal trial courts are required to apply a _______ when considering a motion for a new trial based on the excessiveness of the verdict. A State or federal law standard, in the court's discretion B State law standard C Federal law standard

B. Federal trial courts are required to apply a state law standard when considering a motion for a new trial based on the excessiveness of the verdict. Federal trial courts may neither use a federal law standard, nor choose a state or federal law standard in the court's discretion. J0904 Additional Learning

Which of the following statements regarding the parties involved provides a sufficient basis for applying claim preclusion? response - correct A The earlier and the latter causes of action involved the same parties B The earlier and the latter causes of action were brought by the same claimant against the same defendant C The earlier and the latter causes of action were brought against the same defendant

B. For res judicata to apply, the earlier and latter causes of action must be brought by the same claimant against the same defendant. It is not sufficient simply that both cases involve the same parties. For example, if the defendant in the first case is the claimant in the second case, claim preclusion will not apply even though both cases involve the same parties. Similarly, it is not sufficient that both cases were brought against the same defendant. Claim preclusion will not apply unless the claimant is the same in both cases.

If no federal question is involved and diversity does not exist when a case is commenced, removal will: response - incorrect A Be permitted if the nondiverse parties are thereafter dismissed from the action and the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are then present B Be permitted if the nondiverse parties are thereafter dismissed from the action, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are then present, and not more than one year has passed since the case was commenced in state court C Not be permitted under any circumstances D Be permitted, because subject matter jurisdiction is not required for removal

B. If no federal question is involved and diversity does not exist because a party is a co-citizen of an opposing party (but the amount in controversy is satisfied), removal will be permitted if the nondiverse parties are thereafter dismissed from the action, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are then present, and not more than one year has passed since the case was commenced in state court. This rule is subject to certain limitations. Removal will not be permitted in all cases; i.e., subject matter jurisdiction is required for removal.

In a diversity suit "at common law" in federal court, the parties are _______ when the state court would determine that no right to a jury trial exists. A Entitled to a jury at the federal court's discretion B Entitled to a jury C Not entitled to a jury

B. In a diversity suit "at common law" in federal court, the parties are entitled to a jury whether or not the state court would determine that no right to a jury trial exists. In other words, the right to a jury trial in federal court is governed entirely by federal law, without regard to whether the case would be tried to a jury in state court. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the parties are not entitled to a jury. The right is not discretionary, so the answer "entitled to a jury at the federal court's discretion" is also incorrect. J0903 Additional Learning

In federal civil cases, a jury verdict must be unanimous unless: A The trial judge directs otherwise B The parties agree otherwise C There are more than 10 jurors at the end of the trial D The trial judge and the parties agree otherwise

B. In federal civil cases, a jury verdict must be unanimous unless the parties agree otherwise. The trial judge's approval is not needed to allow a non-unanimous jury verdict. Therefore the answers that state that the trial judge and the parties agree otherwise and the trial judge directs otherwise are incorrect. The number of jurors does not affect unanimity, which is still required even if there are more than 10 jurors at the end of the trial. As long as there are six or more jurors, a verdict may be rendered. J0905B Additional Learning

The Seventh Amendment provides the right to a jury trial in federal courts for the determination of facts in all _______ when the _______. A Suits at common law or equity; amount in controversy exceeds $20 B Suits at common law; amount in controversy exceeds $20 C Suits at common law or equity; facts are in controversy D Suits at common law; facts are in controversy

B. The Seventh Amendment provides the right to a jury trial in federal courts for the determination of facts in all suits at common law where the amount in controversy exceeds $20. The Seventh Amendment initially did not apply to equity cases, so answers that state that it applies to "suits at common law or equity" are incorrect. The Seventh Amendment also specifically refers to cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $20, not any case where the facts are in controversy. J0902 Additional Learning

Four investors, all of whom are American citizens, own as a partnership a chain of 15 car dealerships in a number of states. Two of the investors live in State A, one lives in State B, and one lives in State C. The investors leave the day-to-day operation of each dealership to a manager that the partnership employs. The investors leave the management of the entire chain of dealerships and the day-to-day operation of the partnership to several key officers that it employs. The officers operate out of the partnership's largest dealership, which is in State D. A customer of the State D dealership sued the partnership in federal district court in State D, alleging fraud and breach of contract arising from her purchase of a car, and claiming, in good faith, damages exceeding $75,000. The customer is a citizen of State D. Does the federal district court in State D have subject matter jurisdiction over the customer's action against the partnership? A Yes, because the federal district court is located in State D and not another state. B Yes, because the plaintiff customer is a citizen of State D while the defendant partnership is a citizen of State A, State B, and State C. C No, because the plaintiff customer is a citizen of State D and the defendant partnership is also a citizen of State D, the state where its principal place of business is located. D No, because federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over local transactions that take place entirely in one state.

B. The court has subject matter jurisdiction. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is available when (i) there is complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from every defendant; and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A natural person's citizenship is the state that is the person's permanent home. A partnership is a citizen of each state of which one of its partners is a citizen, both limited and general. Here, the plaintiff is a citizen of State D, and the partners are citizens of State A, State B, and State C. Thus, complete diversity exists, and the amount in controversy is stated to exceed $75,000. As a result, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction exists. (A) is incorrect because diversity would be present in any federal court. Subject matter jurisdiction would thus exist in any federal court. (C) is also incorrect. A corporation's principal place of business is one of its possible citizenships—every state in which the corporation was incorporated being the other possible citizenships. The same rule does not apply to partnerships; a partnership takes on the citizenships of its partners. (D) is an incorrect statement of the law. The fact that the transaction was local does not preclude subject matter jurisdiction founded on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Can a summary judgment be issued when there is a dispute as to an issue of fact? A No, a summary judgment can only be issued if there are no disputes as to facts B Yes, as long as the fact in dispute is not material C Yes, as long as both parties agree to the summary judgment

B. The standard for summary judgment is that there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment may be issued where there is a dispute as to an issue of fact, as long as the fact in dispute is not material. If there is a genuinely disputed material fact (meaning a dispute backed by evidence on both sides of the issue), the case must go to trial. There is no provision to allow for a summary judgment as long as both parties agree to the summary judgment. (Note that a judgment by consent is possible, however.) If there is a dispute as to a material fact, the summary judgment cannot be issued. If there is no such dispute, it can be issued. It is not correct that a summary judgment can only be issued if there are no disputes as to facts. As discussed above, summary judgment is available when the facts in dispute are not material. J0915B Additional Learning

People other than current possessors may have rights in real property. Indeed, the holder of a future interest in real property might not even be born or ascertained. Which of the following statements is true regarding the rights of holders of future interests in real property who are not yet born or ascertained at the time of litigation regarding the real property? A They can be bound by a judgment regarding real property only if a special representative is appointed on their behalf B They can be bound by a judgment regarding real property if their interests are identical to the interests of the parties to the action C They cannot be bound by a judgment rendered before they were born or ascertained

B. Unborn or unascertained persons who have a future interest in a property are bound by judgments as to the property as long as their interests are identical to the parties to the action or a special representative is appointed on their behalf. This rule reflects public policy concerns for the marketability of property. The choice indicating that unborn or unascertained persons can be bound only if a special representative is appointed is incorrect because, as indicated above, they can also be bound if their interests are identical to the interests of the parties involved in the litigation. The choice indicating that unborn or unascertained persons cannot be bound is incorrect because of the two instances discussed above in which they can be bound. J1007 Additional Learning

Under the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), a judgment in a prior case will be sufficient to bind the plaintiff or defendant in subsequent actions on different causes of action as to issues that were: response - correct A Decided by the judge B Actually litigated and essential to the judgment C Decided by a jury

B. Under the doctrine of issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel), a judgment binds the plaintiff or defendant in subsequent actions on different causes of action as to issues that were actually litigated and essential to the judgment. It is not sufficient merely that the issue was decided by a judge; the issue still must be one that was actually litigated and essential to the judgment. Neither is it sufficient that the issue was decided by the jury; it still must be one that was actually litigated and essential to the judgment.

When a jury delivers a verdict that is clearly based on a compromise by the jurors: A The verdict must be set aside and a new trial must be ordered B The verdict may be set aside and either the jury will be asked to reconsider the verdict or a new trial will be ordered C The verdict is valid

B. When a jury delivers a verdict that is clearly based on a compromise by the jurors, the verdict may be set aside and either the jury will be asked to reconsider the verdict or a new trial will be ordered. This is true of any verdict that shows on its face that the jurors failed to follow instructions. It is not the case that a compromise verdict is valid. It is not true that the verdict must be set aside and a new trial must be ordered. Correctable errors must be raised by the aggrieved party or they are waived. J0908 Additional Learning

Which of the following bases for relief from judgment under Rule 60 does not necessarily have to be brought within one year? A Fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party B Newly discovered evidence that, by due diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial C The judgment is void. D Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect

C. A motion for relief from judgment because the judgment is void must be brought within a reasonable time, but there is no outermost deadline. When relief is based on (i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (ii) newly discovered evidence that, by due diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; or (iii) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party, the motion must be brought within a reasonable time not to exceed one year. J1202 Additional Learning

Generally, a court can grant a summary judgment where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. If a party fails to support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact, can the court grant summary judgment? A No, failure to address a fact does not mean it is undisputed B Yes, but only if the fact is not material C Yes, the court may consider the fact undisputed

C. If a party fails to support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact, the court may consider the fact undisputed and grant a summary judgment. Note that the court may also give the other party an opportunity to address the fact or may issue any other appropriate order. The answer "Yes, but only if the fact is not material" is incorrect because the court may grant a summary judgment where a material fact is not supported or addressed, because it deems the fact to be undisputed. The answer "No, failure to address a fact does not mean it is undisputed" is incorrect because the court may deem that fact undisputed. J0916B Additional Learning

A corporation operated several factories that were emitting toxic chemicals into the air. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") sued the corporation in federal court for violation of several environmental laws, and the jury found in favor of the EPA. One of the corporation's factories was located near a town, and some residents believed that their health had been harmed by the factory's emissions. One resident sued the corporation in federal district court, alleging damages stemming from the factory's violation of the environmental laws. The resident asserts issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) to establish the factory's violation of the environmental laws. If the court permits the resident to use issue preclusion to establish the violation, what is the likely reason? response - incorrect A A nonparty in the first case is always allowed to use issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) offensively or defensively against someone who was a party in the first case. B There was a valid, final judgment on the merits in the first case, and the same cause of action is involved in the resident's lawsuit. C The court determined that it is fair and equitable to allow the resident to use issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) offensively. D A party can use issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) offensively when the defendant has been found to have violated a federal law.

C. If the court permits the resident to use issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) to establish the violation, it is likely because the court determined that it is fair and equitable for the resident to do so. Under the traditional mutuality rule, only someone who was a party in the previous case can use issue preclusion. However, this rule has been modified to allow nonparties to use issue preclusion in certain circumstances. When a nonparty wants to use a previous judgment offensively, the court must consider whether it would be fair and equitable to allow the nonparty to do so. (A) is therefore incorrect because nonparties are not always allowed to use issue preclusion offensively or defensively. (B) is incorrect because the same cause of action need not be involved. The same cause of action is a requirement for claim preclusion (res judicata). (D) is an incorrect statement of the law.

In non-default cases, a court may issue an injunction: A Only if the plaintiff requested some form of equitable relief in its pleadings B Only if the plaintiff specifically requested an injunction in its pleadings C Whenever it is appropriate based on the evidence

C. In non-default cases, a court may grant any relief that is appropriate based on the evidence. It can order injunctive relief even if the plaintiff does not request it. Therefore, whether the plaintiff specifically requested an injunction in its pleadings or requested some form of equitable relief in its pleadings does not affect the court's ability to issue an injunction when appropriate based on the evidence. J0911A Additional Learning

An author from State A filed a claim in federal court sitting in State B against a publisher headquartered in State B. The complaint alleged that the publisher plagiarized a portion of the author's book and asserted both a copyright infringement claim under federal law and an unfair business practices claim under an applicable State B statute. At trial, the publisher presented evidence that the author never filed the copyright infringement claim with the appropriate federal agency, as required by the federal statute, thereby invalidating the copyright infringement claim. The claim for unfair business practices, however, was still capable of obtaining a favorable verdict. The publisher moved for dismissal of the state law claim as well. How should the federal court rule? A The court must remand the state law claim to state court because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction without the copyright infringement claim. B The court must dismiss the state law claim, because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction without the copyright infringement claim. C The court should, in its discretion, retain jurisdiction over the state law claim because the trial has begun. D The court should, in its discretion, dismiss the state law claim because the jury has not yet begun to deliberate.

C. The court may dismiss or hear the state law claim in its discretion, but will likely retain jurisdiction over it. When a claim is in federal court under federal question jurisdiction, and the plaintiff has a state law claim against the defendant that cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction, the federal court has discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim if the federal and state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding. The court may continue to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state claim even though the federal claim is dismissed on the merits. However, the state claim should probably also be dismissed (without prejudice) if the federal claim is dismissed before trial. Here, although the federal copyright claim was invalid, it was deemed to be so during trial, before a verdict was rendered. Since the case is currently being tried, the court will likely hear the state claim for the sake of judicial economy. (B) is wrong, because, as stated above, the federal court has the discretion under supplemental jurisdiction to hear the state claim. (A) is wrong for the same reason, and also because remand can only occur when the action was commenced in state court and then removed to federal court. (D) is wrong because, although the decision is within the court's discretion, the start of the trial is the point at which a federal court will usually retain jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims for the sake of judicial economy.

A resident of State A sued a resident of State B in federal district court in State B for breach of contract. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff alleged that the contract was entered into in State C and was to be performed in State D. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant failed to perform. While hearing this case, what substantive law should the federal district court apply? response - correct A The law that the State D state court would apply. B The law that the State C state court would apply. C The law that the State B state court would apply. D The law that the federal district court believes most logically applies.

C. The court should apply the law that the State B state court would apply. In a diversity case, the federal court applies the law that would be applied by the courts of the state in which the federal court is located. This includes the state's choice of law rules. In the instant case, the federal court sitting in State B may well, as an end result, apply the law of State D or State C, but if it does so, it will be because State B's choice of law rules require such a result. (A) and (B) are incorrect because the answers imply that the federal court will apply State D's or State C's choice of law rules, which is incorrect. (D) is incorrect because the federal court cannot ignore the law the state would apply even though it finds that law to be unsatisfactory.

A State A citizen and a State B citizen were in an automobile accident in State B. The State B citizen filed a negligence action for $500,000 against the State A citizen in a federal district court located in State B. The State A defendant would prefer to litigate the case in a State B state court. The State A defendant thus filed a notice of removal, seeking to transfer the case to a State B state court. Should the federal court grant the motion? A Yes, because federal diversity jurisdiction is not needed to protect the State A citizen from the potential bias of State B courts if the State A citizen requests that the matter be litigated in the State B state courts. B Yes, because tort actions arising from accidents in State B should be litigated in State B state courts. C No, because removal to state court is not available for cases that are properly filed in federal court and that are within the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. D No, because removal to state court is not available when one of the parties is a citizen of the state in which the action is pending.

C. The court should not grant the motion. Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441, a defendant may remove an action that could originally have been brought in the federal courts, based on either a federal question being presented or on diversity of citizenship. However, there is no similar provision that allows a case initially filed in federal court to be moved to state court. (An action that was wrongfully removed from state court to federal court may be remanded back to state court, but that procedure is not applicable here because the case was initially filed in federal court.) (A) is incorrect. As stated, although one goal behind diversity jurisdiction is to lessen an in-state prejudice against out-of-state defendants, the lack of that potential prejudice does not provide a basis for moving a case from federal court to state court. (B) is an incorrect statement of the law. A case based on diversity jurisdiction may include a tort action that arose in the jurisdiction. (D) is an incorrect statement of the law. An in-state defendant is prevented from removing a case to federal court based on diversity. The fact that the plaintiff may be a citizen of the state in which the state case was filed does not prevent removal.

A plaintiff brought an action in a state court against a defendant, a city police chief in the state, alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The defendant moves to dismiss the state suit on the ground that the action must be brought in federal court because a federal question is involved. Should the court grant the defendant's motion to dismiss? A Yes, because the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over the action. B Yes, but the plaintiff may defeat dismissal by adding a state law claim. C No, because the federal courts and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the action. D No, but the defendant may remove to federal court if he has a defense based on federal law.

C. The defendant's motion will be denied. The federal courts and the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most types of actions. The few areas over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction include bankruptcy cases, patent and copyright cases, antitrust cases, and a few other less common types of actions. (A) is incorrect for the reasons discussed above. (B) is incorrect because the appropriate remedy for a defendant would be to have the case removed to federal court. Furthermore, a defendant would be able to remove notwithstanding the state law claim; a court could invoke its supplemental jurisdiction to have a pendent state claim heard with claims based on federal law. (D) is incorrect. A defense based on federal law would not enable a defendant to remove the case to federal court.

On January 15, a patient sued his doctor and his surgeon in State A state court for medical malpractice. All acts of malpractice took place in State A. The patient and the surgeon are citizens of State A; the doctor is a citizen of State B. Fifteen months later, it was learned after extensive discovery that the surgeon was only peripherally involved in the patient's treatment and was in no way negligent, so the patient dismissed the cause of action against the surgeon. Two weeks later, the doctor seeks to remove the case against him to federal court in State A, alleging diversity jurisdiction. May the doctor successfully remove the case to a federal district court? A Yes, because removal was sought within 30 days of the date that the doctor first learned that the case had become removable. B Yes, because removal was sought within one year of the case becoming removable. C No, because a case may not be removed to federal court more than one year after the action was commenced. D No, because a defendant may not seek removal if the cause of action accrued in the forum state.

C. The doctor may not remove the case. If a diversity action is not initially removable but later becomes removable (as by dismissal of a nondiverse defendant), it may not be removed more than one year after it was commenced in state court. (A) is incorrect. In all cases, the defendant has 30 days after a case becomes removable to file a notice of removal; however, for diversity cases only, removal must also occur within one year from the date the case is commenced. (B) is incorrect. The one-year limit begins when the action is commenced, not when the case first became removable. (D) is incorrect. There is no such rule.

Under Federal Rule 68, which party or parties may make a formal offer to have judgment entered, thus settling the case out of court? A Claimants only B Claimants or defending parties C Defending parties only

C. Under Federal Rule 68, only defending parties may make a formal offer to have judgment entered. Therefore, "claimants or defending parties" and "claimants only" are incorrect. Note that in many states, claimants may make formal offers to have judgment entered. However, Rule 68 only allows defending parties to make such an offer. J0914B Additional Learning

A complaint __________ create federal question jurisdiction if it alleges federal issues only in anticipation of some defense. response - correct A May B Will C Will not

C. Will not.

A plaintiff, a citizen of State A, sued a defendant, a citizen of State B, in state court in State B for breach of a contract to build a house for $200,000. The defendant counterclaimed for $300,000, alleging that the plaintiff breached an earlier contract by failing to pay for a house that the defendant had built. The plaintiff files a notice of removal to federal court in State B. Can the case properly be removed to the federal court in State B? A Yes, because all plaintiffs are of diverse citizenships from all defendants. B Yes, unless the defendant objects to removal. C No, unless the defendant joins in the removal. D No, because only defendants may remove.

D.

Dismissals by notice are normally without prejudice, unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed any ______ action on the same claim. This is known as _______. A Federal; the two dismissal rule B Federal; res judicata C Federal or state; res judicata D Federal or state; the two dismissal rule

D. Dismissals by notice are normally without prejudice, unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed any federal or state action on the same claim. This is known as the two dismissal rule. Note that a prior dismissal in state court counts against the plaintiff under the two dismissal rule. Therefore, the answer choices with "federal" instead of "federal or state" are incorrect. This question defines the two dismissal rule, not res judicata, which is triggered by a final judgment on the merits. Res judicata would not apply to a voluntary dismissal, as it is not a "final judgment on the merits." J0913A Additional Learning

For a claim brought under diversity jurisdiction, __________ is required to be alleged as damages to satisfy the jurisdictional amount A The amount of $75,000 or more B The amount of $100,000 or more C An amount that exceeds $100,000 D An amount that exceeds $75,000

D. For claims brought under diversity jurisdiction, an amount that exceeds $75,000 is required to be alleged as damages to satisfy the jurisdictional amount, exclusive of interest and costs. Hence, answers with an amount that exceeds $100,000 and the amount of $100,000 or more are incorrect. It is not enough for the claim to involve exactly $75,000; it must be in excess of that amount. Thus, the answer with the amount of $75,000 or more is incorrect.

forth facts that would be _______, and show the affiant is _______. A Be made on personal knowledge; relevant to the motion; available to testify B Be relevant to the motion; admissible in evidence; available to testify C Be made on personal knowledge; relevant to the motion; competent to testify D Be made on personal knowledge; admissible in evidence; competent to testify

D. In order to support a motion for summary judgment, affidavits or declarations submitted must be made on personal knowledge, set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show the affiant is competent to testify. All three elements must be satisfied. Therefore, the answer "be made on personal knowledge; relevant to the motion; competent to testify" is incorrect because the requirement that the facts would be admissible in evidence is missing, and there is no specific requirement that they be relevant to the motion. The answer "be relevant to the motion; admissible in evidence; available to testify" is incorrect because the requirement that the affidavit be based on personal knowledge is missing. Additionally, the affidavit need not show that the affiant is available to testify, but rather that the affiant is competent to testify. Finally, there is no specific requirement that the affidavit be relevant to the motion. For the latter two reasons, the answer "be made on personal knowledge; relevant to the motion; available to testify" is incorrect. J0916A Additional Learning

A citizen of State A asserted a state law claim of $80,000 against a citizen of State B in the federal district court. The State B citizen has a state law claim against another citizen of State B for $90,000 that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original complaint. As a result, the State B citizen brought a third-party action against that person. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the State B citizen's claim in the third-party action? A No, because the amount in controversy is insufficient. B No, because there is no diversity of citizenship. C Yes, because the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been met. D Yes, because the court has supplemental jurisdiction.

D. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim under its supplemental jurisdiction powers. The prerequisites for diversity of citizenship do not exist, because both are residents of State B. However, the court would have supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party claim that arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying claim. Although (B) is a true statement, it is incorrect because there is supplemental jurisdiction. (A) is factually incorrect. (C) is incorrect because, as stated, diversity of citizenship is lacking.

The court may consolidate actions then before it only when the actions: A Have a common question of fact only B Will, when consolidated, foster judicial economy C Have a common question of law only D Have a common question of law or fact

D. The court may consolidate actions then before it only when the actions have a common question of law or fact. The answers "have a common question of law only" and "have a common question of fact only" are both incorrect because they are incomplete. That the actions will, when consolidated, foster judicial economy is not a basis for consolidation. It may sound familiar because, under Federal Rule 42(b), a court may separate claims when such separation will foster judicial economy. J0911 Additional Learning

A citizen of State A ran a red light at a traffic intersection, striking a pedestrian, a citizen of State B, who was lawfully in the middle of the crosswalk at the time. The accident occurred in State B. Despite the pedestrian's extensive injuries, the driver was more concerned with the damage to his new automobile. The driver sued the pedestrian in a state court of State B for $90,000 for damage to his car. The driver promptly lost, and then decided to bring suit in federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction. May the driver successfully bring his claim in federal court? response - incorrect A Yes, because the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met. B Yes, because a state court decision does not bind a federal court. C No, because all claims merged with the state court case. D No, because the claim is barred.

D. The driver will not be successful because the claim is barred. Bar occurs when a plaintiff loses. The adverse judgment "bars" the plaintiff from relitigating the cause of action. (A) is incorrect because, although the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are met, the driver will not be successful because the claim is barred, as discussed above. (B) is incorrect. Federal courts will give the same preclusive effect of a state court decision that the state that issued it would; e.g., here, a federal court would give the State B state court decision the same preclusive effect that another State B state court would. (C) is incorrect. Merger occurs when a plaintiff wins; his cause of action is said to "merge" into the judgment such that he cannot relitigate the cause of action later.

An employee filed an action against his employer in federal district court, claiming unlawful age discrimination in employment. The employee did not like the judge who was assigned to the case because the employee perceived the judge to be antagonistic to employment discrimination claims. Two weeks after filing the action and before the employer served its answer to the complaint, the employee voluntarily dismissed the action. Several months later, the employee filed an identical action in the same court. Is the employee's claim barred because of the prior dismissal? response - correct A Yes, because a voluntary dismissal operates as adjudication on the merits and bars subsequent assertions of the same claim. B Yes, because, while voluntary dismissals for valid reasons will not preclude subsequent assertions of a claim, the employee's reason for the voluntary dismissal in this instance is invalid and thus bars the subsequent assertion of the claim. C No, unless the employer properly asserts the affirmative defense of claim preclusion. D No, because the prior dismissal was without prejudice since the employee had not previously dismissed the same claim.

D. The employee's claim is not barred because of the prior dismissal. A plaintiff may of right dismiss an action one time without prejudice before the defendant serves its answer. (A) is incorrect because a voluntary dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits. (B) is incorrect because a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case for any reason. (C) is incorrect because claim preclusion applies when there has been a valid, final judgment on the merits. A voluntary dismissal is not a final judgment on the merits; therefore the employer cannot properly assert the defense of claim preclusion.

A plaintiff, a citizen of State A, sued a defendant, a citizen of State B, alleging that the defendant violated the Civil Rights Act by refusing to serve the plaintiff in her restaurant. The plaintiff brought his suit in state court in State B, asking for damages of $100,000. The defendant seeks to remove the case to the United States District Court for the District of State B, and the plaintiff opposes removal. Should the court grant the defendant's motion to remove the action? A No, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state. B No, because the state court has concurrent jurisdiction, making removal improper. C Yes, because diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. D Yes, because a federal question has been presented.

D. The motion should be granted. The case may be removed because the federal court has federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff's action, because it is based on the Civil Rights Act. (A) is incorrect. The limitation on removal by defendants who are citizens of the state in whose court the action was brought applies only to diversity actions. (C) is incorrect. Although diversity of citizenship appears to be present in this action, it is only incidental. The removal statute provides that "any civil action of which the district courts have [federal question jurisdiction] shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties." [28 U.S.C. §1441(b)] When both a federal question and diversity jurisdiction exist, the federal question jurisdiction normally "trumps" diversity jurisdiction. In any event, if this case were to be solely based on diversity, the defendant could not remove because she is a citizen of the forum state. (B) is incorrect because, although a state court may have concurrent jurisdiction, this jurisdiction, by itself, would not prevent removal.

As to what issues may a juror testify regarding matters occurring during deliberations? A A juror may never testify about matters occurring during deliberation B Only whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention C Only whether any significant outside influence was brought to bear on any juror D Whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was brought to bear on any juror

D. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), a juror can testify on matters occurring during deliberation only if she is testifying on a question of whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention OR whether any outside influence was brought to bear on any juror. Answers containing only one of the above two scenarios are incorrect because they are incomplete. The answer that a juror may never testify about matters occurring during deliberations is also incorrect. J0910 Additional Learning

To receive a jury trial, a party generally must: A File a written demand and serve it on any opposing parties within 28 days after the service of the last pleading directed to the jury-triable fact issue B File a written demand and serve it on any opposing parties within 14 days after the service of the last pleading directed to the jury-triable issue C File a written demand and serve it on all the parties within 28 days after the service of the last pleading directed to the jury-triable issue D File a written demand and serve it on all the parties within 14 days after the service of the last pleading directed to the jury-triable issue

D. Under Rule 38, to receive a jury trial a party must file a written demand and serve it on all the parties within 14 days after the service of the last pleading directed to the jury-triable issue. Otherwise, the right to a jury trial generally is deemed waived. Note, however, that the Supreme Court has held that, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, a court should grant relief from the waiver if the issue is normally tried by a jury. Filing a written demand within 28 days after the service of the last pleading directed to the jury-triable issue may be too late. The applicable period is 14 days. Filing a written demand on any opposing parties may be insufficient where multiple parties are involved. All parties must be served. J0901 Additional Learning

Under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules Of Appellate Procedure, in an action where the United States is a party, a notice of appeal must be filed with the district court within ____ days from the entry of judgment. A 28 B 14 C 30 D 60

D. Under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, in an action where the United States is a party, the parties have 60 days from the entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal with the district court. In cases where the Unites States is not a party, the filing period is 30 days. Twenty-eight days and 14 days are both incorrect. But note that the time to appeal may be extended in some circumstances. J0914B Additional Learning

A party's state citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined: A When the lawsuit is filed B When the cause of action accrues C When the lawsuit is filed, but if a party changes his state citizenship after the lawsuit is filed, the new state citizenship controls D When the lawsuit is filed (for a claimant) or when process is served (for a defendant)

Diversity of citizenship is determined when the lawsuit is filed. Diversity need not exist when the cause of action accrues, and it is not defeated if a party changes his state citizenship after the lawsuit is filed. Hence, those choices are incorrect. State citizenship for diversity purposes is not controlled by service of process. Thus, the choice that includes "when process is served (for a defending party)" is incorrect.

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the state citizenship of an individual is determined by: A The state in which the person has his permanent home and to which he intends to return B The state in which the person is currently residing, even if temporarily C The state in which the person votes D The state in which the person has a valid driver's license or state identification card

For diversity purposes, the state citizenship of an individual is the state in which he has his permanent home and to which he intends to return. The state in which the person is currently residing, even if temporarily, is not the person's home state for diversity purposes. Although voting and holding some sort of state identification will be considered as evidence of an individual's true permanent home, the state in which the person votes and the state in which the person has a valid driver's license or state identification card are not generally determinative of the person's state citizenship.

If proper notice has been given to all interested persons, judgment as to title or status of property in in rem judgments are binding on: A The parties to the action and their privies B Only the parties to the action C Any person with proper notice of the action

c. Judgment as to title or status of property in in rem judgments are binding on any person with proper notice of the action. The effect of the judgment is not limited to only the parties to the action or the parties to the action and their privies. J1006 Additional Learning