Select Page

University of Kansas School of Law
Peck, John C.

Civil Procedure II Outline

Jury Trials
Right to Jury Trial in Civil Cases
1. Suits in equity have no mandatory requirement for jury trials.
2. Suits in law jury trial are allowable.
3. Chauffeurs v. Teamsters and Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry: A Π in an action against a union for breach of duty of fair representation is entitled to a jury trial. The 7th amendment guarantees a civil party a right to a jury trial in actions of law.
4. 2 part test:
a. Nature of the case involved: consider historical analogies
b. Remedy sought: Legal, equitable, governed by statute?
5. Factors to look at to decide if a matter is appropriate for a jury trial
a. Relief Sought
b. Historical Custom: Historically where that cause of action would have been dealt with and the relationship between the parties
c. Ability & Limitations of jurors: Complexity of the issue.
d. Congressional intent (in the case of statutory claims): There may be a federal right to a jury trial in state court actions involving matters governed by federal law, where Congress has so provided.
6. Rule 38(b) – Use to request a Jury Trial:
a. (b) Demand: Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by (1) serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue, and (2) filing the demand as required by Rule 5(d). Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.
Personal Jurisdiction
Traditional Concepts
1. In rem Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over property.
2. In personam Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the Δ.
3. Quasi In rem Jurisdiction: A hybrid of the other two forms of adjudicatory power. Based on the presence of the Δ’s property within the forum state. It permits the court to enter a judgment for tan amount of money not exceeding the value of the property.
4. Pennoyer v. Neff: A court may enter a binding judgment against a non-resident only if he is personally served w/ process while within the state or if he has property within the state, if that property is attached before litigation begins.
5. Hess v. Pawloski: A State does have the power to declare that all non-residents who use its highways have impliedly consented to submit to the state’s jurisdiction for all actions arising from that highway usage. This is a legal fiction that arose out of Pennoyer. The Δ must have an agent to accept service of process.
6. Harris v. Balk: A debtor’s obligat

Continuous, Systematic, & Substantial Activities within Forum

Only Related Claims

Only Related Claims

Only Related Claims

All Claims, Related or Not

3. Long-Arm Statutes: Whether a court may assert jurisdiction over a nonresident pursuant to a long-arm statute requires a two-step inquiry:
a. Does the statute apply to the particular case?
b. If so, does it nonetheless reach beyond the constitutional constraints of International Shoe’s minimum contacts test?
4. What are the considerations for Personal Jurisdiction?
a. Interests of Π, Δ, and Forum
b. What kinds of facts do we need to know?
i. Awareness that you’ve developed a significant relationship with the state. How much of an effort do you need to make to create a relationship with the state?