November 20 Online Study Group Quiz

Which of the following is the best summary of the Erie doctrine?

State courts apply substantive federal law and state procedural law when deciding federal cases.
State court apply state procedural law and state substantive law when deciding federal cases.
Federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law when deciding state law cases.
Federal courts apply federal substantive law and state procedural law when deciding state law cases.

Which of the following explains why state law claims may be decided in federal court?

Federal courts can remove cases from state court.
When exercising diversity subject matter jurisdiction, federal courts usually are deciding state law claims.
Federal question subject matter jurisdiction by definition concerns state law claims.
State courts can remand cases to federal court.

Which of the following best summarizes the Rules of Decision Act?

When a federal court asserts federal question jurisdiction, the court must apply federal law.
When a federal court asserts diversity jurisdiction, it must apply substantive state law to state law claims.
When a federal court applies federal procedural rules, these rules must be narrowly tailored to achieving an important government purpose.
When a federal court decides a state law case, it must certify determinations of state law to the highest state court.

What is the Rules Enabling Act?

The REA requires federal courts to apply state substantive law to state law claims.
The REA requires states to apply federal rules of procedure when deciding federal claims.
The REA empowers states to enact state procedural rules.
The REA authorizes the Supreme Court to create federal procedural rules.

Among other things, what did the Supreme Court decide in Erie v. Tompkins?

Federal courts deciding state law claims must apply state statutory law but not state common law
Federal courts deciding state law claims must apply state statutory law and state common law
Federal courts deciding state law claims need not apply state statutory law but must apply state common law
Federal courts deciding state law claims should determine whether to apply federal or state law to state law claims on a flexible basis.

What do courts identify as the twin aims of the Erie Doctrine?

Discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws
Promotion of state procedure and state substantive law in the federal courts
Quick and inexpensive resolution of legal disputes
Swift disposal of meritless claims and logical verdicts

Which of the following best summarizes the “outcome-determinative” test in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York (1945)?

A federal court should apply the law of a State that would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by the same parties in a State court to avoid a different result in federal court.
A federal court should not apply the law of a State that would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by the same parties in a State court so that the federal court can ensure a different result in federal court.
A federal court should apply a state procedural rule in federal court so long as the state procedural rule would not cause a different result in federal court from an identical claim by the same parties in the State court.
Federal courts should apply federal law if the outcome of the case would be manifestly unjust to either party if state law were applied.

Which of the following best summarizes the decision in Guaranty Trust v. York (1945)

The state’s statute of limitations should be applied in federal court because statutes of limitation are per se substantive.
To avoid a different outcome in federal court, the court should apply the state’s statute of limitation where application of that statute would so intimately affect recovery or not.
To safeguard principles of federalism, a federal court should not apply a state statute of limitation so that each sovereign can apply its own law without interference.
To ensure a different outcome in federal court, the court should not apply the state’s statute of limitation where application of that statute would so intimately affect recovery or not.

Which of the following best summarizes the decision in Byrd v. Blue Ridge Electrical Co-Op, Inc. (1958)?

A state law requiring judge to decide whether a party should be defined as an “employee” was a substantive rule, and even though potentially outcome determinative, should not be applied in federal court because of Seventh Amendment implications.
A state law requiring judge to decide whether a party should be defined as an “employee” was a procedural rule, not potentially outcome determinative, and should not be applied in federal court under the Erie Doctrine.
State law always trumps federal rules in diversity cases.
A state law requiring judge to decide whether a party should be defined as an “employee” was a procedural rule, and even though potentially outcome determinative, should not be applied in federal court because of Seventh Amendment implications.

Why is Byrd seen as a departure from the decision in York?

Because Byrd suggests that even though a state rule might be outcome determinative, a federal court should decline to apply the rule based on countervailing federal or Constitutional concerns.
Because Byrd suggests that whenever a state law is outcome determinative, a federal court should apply the law.
Because Byrd suggests that the Seventh Amendment does not apply where federal courts assert jurisdiction based on diversity.
Because Byrd suggests that federal courts should apply state substantive law.

Which of the following best summarizes one of two major conclusions reached by the Court in Hanna v Plumer (1965)?

So long as a state law would determine the outcome of the case, a federal court must apply the state law.
Regardless of whether a state law would determine the outcome of a case, a federal court need not apply it.
Even though application of a state law might determine the outcome of a case, a federal court need not apply it if it is unlikely to have affected the choice of forum and its application would not raise the equal protection issues raised by Erie.
Federal rules must not be applied in federal court cases where there is a conflicting state rule.

Which of the following best summarizes another important conclusion reached by the Court in Hanna v. Plumer (1965)?

Federal courts should apply federal rules in diversity cases so long as the rule is appropriate under the Rules Enabling Act and is constitutional.
Federal courts should apply not apply federal rules in diversity cases even if the rule is appropriate under the Rules Enabling Act and is constitutional.
Federal courts should apply federal rules in diversity cases so long as the rule does not conflict with an outcome determinative state law.
Federal courts should not apply federal rules in diversity cases unless the rule was established prior to the state law.

How might the decision in Hanna be seen as a departure or clarification of the decisions in York and Byrd?

The Hanna Court clarified that the federal courts must apply state substantive law.
The Hanna Court clarified that the federal courts must not apply federal rules in diversity cases.
The Hanna Court clarified that a federal court should follow federal rules in diversity cases so long as the federal rules do not enlarge, restrict, or modify a substantive right and are constitutional.
The Hanna Court clarified that a a federal court should not follow federal rules in diversity cases regardless of whether the federal rules enlarge, restrict, or modify a substantive right and are constitutional.

Which of the following accurately explains a difference between the facts presented in York and Byrd on the one hand and Hanna on the other?

Unlike Byrd and York, Hanna concerned a federal court choice between applying a federal rule and a conflicting state law.
Unlike Byrd and York, Hanna concerned a federal court choice between applying the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and a state law purporting to nullify that right.
Unlike Byrd and York, Hanna concerned a federal court choice between applying a federal statute and a conflicting state law.
Unlike Byrd and York, Hanna concerned a federal court choice between applying a federal judicial practice and a conflicting state law.

What was the holding in the opinion written by Justice Scalia in Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2010)?

Citing the Rules Enabling Act, Scalina wrote that a federal court should not apply F.R.Civ. P. 23 (which governs class actions in federal court), and instead must apply a conflicting state law, because the state law provides substantive rights.
A federal court must apply F. Ri. Civ. P. 23, which governs class actions in federal court, and not a conflicting state law, because Rule 23 does not conflict with the Rules Enabling Act.
A federal court must apply F.R.Civ. P. 23, which governs class actions in federal court, and not a conflicting state law, because the state law is procedural.
A federal court should apply F. R. Civ. P. 23 because the state law that conflicts with it is unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs filed an action in federal court based on false statements in a prospectus. Defendants demonstrated that in an earlier action a court dismissed a different cause of action against different defendants brought by the same plaintiffs because the court found that plaintiffs never actually received the prospectus. What result?

This case should probably be dismissed. The earlier action is irrelevant because it was a different cause of action.
This case should probably be dismissed. The earlier action is irrelevant if these are different defendants.
This case should probably be dismissed on grounds of issue preclusion.
The case should probably be dismissed on grounds of claim preclusion.

Defendants in prior action successfully vacated writ of attachment against ship on a preliminary basis because judgment debtor failed to show that the ship’s owner was the judgment debtor’s alter-ego. In subsequent action plaintiff looked to enforce final judgment against the same ship. Can defendant judgment debtor successfully raise issue preclusion against judgment creditor?

No, because without a final judgment, issue preclusion never applies.
No because prior case was a preliminary order under different standard of proof.
Yes, because the same parties were involved.
Yes because claim preclusion applies.

Plaintiff commenced a breach of contract action against defendant on January 15. On April 5 of the following year he discovered new breaches that occurred on February 15.. Plaintiff commenced a new breach of contract action based on the February 15 breach. Defendant raised claim preclusion as a defense. What result?

The action is probably barred because the same parties are litigating the same issues litigated in a prior case.
The action is probably barred because the parties are litigating the same claim that could have been litigated in the prior case.
The action is probably not barred because claim preclusion generally does not apply in breach of contract cases.
The action is probably not barred because plaintiff could not have asserted the new breach of contract claim in the prior action and there was no requirement that it add the claim.

November 20 Online Study Group Quiz

November 20 Online Study Group Quiz

Quiz Summary

Information

Results

Results

Categories

1. Question

2. Question

3. Question

4. Question

5. Question

6. Question

7. Question

8. Question

9. Question

10. Question

11. Question

12. Question

13. Question

14. Question

15. Question

16. Question

17. Question

18. Question