Civil Procedure II Outline

CIVIL PROCEDURE II OUTLINE
 
I.               Trial by Jury (TBJ)
A.   7th Amendment
1.          Part of the Bill of Rights
2.          Applies to federal but not state.
3.          “Preserves” (vice creates) the right to TBJ.
4.          Construed to mean that it preserves the RTTBJ of those cases in England
 that had a right to TBJ in 1791 (if the amt in controversy was over $20).
5.          Supreme Court held in 1830 that just b/c COA didn’t exist in 1791, it is not
precluded.
B.    Two parts of the 7th Amendment:
1.          Preservation clause: “In suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed $20, the right to TBJ shall be preserved,…”
2.          Re-examination clause: “…and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
reexamined in any Court of the U.S., than according to the rules of the
common law.
C.    Maryland
1.          Article 23 of the state constitution also preserves the right to TBJ of those
cases w/a right to TBJ as of 1776. The threshold for amt in controversy is
$10,000.
D.    Two questions:
1.          When does the right to TBJ exist? And
2.          What must be done to preserve it?
 
Pre-1792
Post-1791
 
Law Cts
Equity Cts
K’s
Discrimination
Dmgs
Other
Torts
IIED
 
 
 
E.   Curtis v. Loether, 1974 (Op. by Justice Marshall):
1.           Issued involved violation of CRA and FHA (wouldn’t rent to a black
woman). CRA did not exist in 1791 obviously. D asked for TBJ (unusual). Ct decided there was no right to TBJ for violation of CRA under the 7th Amendment. COA over-turned. Supreme Ct aff’d COA. Supreme Ct analogized the CRA violation to defamation which did exist in 1791. 
2.          Another important fact is damages. Here the P was seeking dmgs. 
3.          Justice Marshall also addressed the bias of juries. He stated that the risk
of bias juries can be overcome by authority of the judges to issue jnov and new trials.
4.          Congress responded in 1988 by allowing an administrative hrg for
violations of the FHA. An ALJ, not a jury, would determine and it would be subject to judicial review. For example, HUD administrative hrg decision could be reviewed by district ct. 
 
II.            When a suit has both law and equity claims
A.   Equity Courts
1.          In 1791, there were no juries in equity courts.
2.          There were none in MD equity cts either until 1983.
3.          Can act in personam literally ordering a party to do or not to do something. i.e.
P-x who repeatedly sues D-y. Equity could only act when law courts were inadequate. Once in equity, ct could hear whole case and no TBJ or it could hear the equity claim and then send to law ct to hear law claim—it had discretion. It was called equitable clean-up. 
B.   What are equity claims?
1.          We looked at this question in “pleadings”.
2.          Most common example is trusts. Law courts would only recognize legal
titles. So Lionhard had to give title to Sir Richard while he went on his crusades so that Richard could exercise his legal rights while he was gone.   Richard refuses to give back title when Lionhard returns. Equity cts developed and viewed that scenario as Richard holding Lionhard’s titles “in trust”.
3.          An equity ct can act “in personam” (i.e. Cibatta leaves Yankess to pitch for
Boston before his K w/Yankess is up). Judge cannot make Cibatta pitch for the Yankees but can prohibit him from pitching