Civil Procedure Cases And Materials 11th Edition Jack Friedenthal, Arthur Miller, John Sexton, Helen Hershkoff - Solutions

Unlock the potential of your studies with the "Civil Procedure Cases And Materials 11th Edition" by Jack Friedenthal, Arthur Miller, John Sexton, and Helen Hershkoff. Dive into our collection of solved problems and step-by-step answers that provide comprehensive insights into each chapter. Our online solution manual and answers key offer a seamless learning experience, enhancing your understanding through detailed questions and answers. Access our instructor manual and test bank to explore chapter solutions and tackle complex concepts with ease. Experience the convenience of free download solutions PDF, equipping you with the knowledge you need to excel in your civil procedure coursework.

Summarize the majority opinion’s reasons for ruling that the stop and frisk of Williams was reasonable.
Compare the facts in Williams with those in Terry in three respects: the crimes involved, the degree of the intrusions involved, and the objective basis for the officers’actions. Which case do you think best upholds the Balancing Ideal of Criminal Procedure? Why?
List the facts that Connolly relied on to back up his actions.
List all of Officer Connolly’s actions that infringed on Robert Williams’s privacy and/or liberty.
During oral arguments of the case before the Supreme Court, Louis Stokes, Terry’s lawyer, revealed some of what happened at the suppression hearing. Stokes said, among other things, that Officer McFadden testified that he didn’t know the men, that they walked normally, that they were standing
Consider the following excerpt from an amicus curiae brief filed in Terry v. Ohio:
It was also learned during the oral argument that Terry, Chilton, and Katz were a lot bigger than Officer McFadden. Does this matter? Why? Why not?
During the oral argument before the Supreme Court, it came out that in all of Officer McFadden’s experience, he’d never investigated a robbery; his experience was limited to spotting and investigating shoplifters and pickpockets. Does this matter? Explain your answer.
Summarize the main points of Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion. What do they add to your understanding of Chief Justice Warren’s opinion?
What was the objective basis (facts and circumstances) for McFadden’s “frisk” of Terry?
What was the objective basis (facts and circumstances) for McFadden’s “stop” of Terry?
According to the Court, at what point did McFadden search Terry? Summarize the Court’s reasons for picking that point.
According to the Court, at what point did McFadden seize Terry? Summarize the Court’s reasons for picking that point.
According to Professor Lewis Katz (2004), who worked on one of the briefs in the case:The Court played fast and loose with the most important fact in the case: the number of trips Terry and Chilton made up the street and how many times they looked into the store window. [Chief Justice] Warren
List in chronological order all of McFadden’s actions from the time he started watching Terry until he arrested him.
Is Ganias a wrongdoer who has no reasonable expectation in any files that incriminated him? Defend your answer.
Which side has the stronger argument?Explain your answer.
Summarize the court’s arguments in favor of the reasonableness of Ganias’s expectation of privacy in the non-responsive files.
Summarize the Government’s arguments in favor of its “ownership” of the“non-responsive files.”
Describe the court’s difficulty applying the 18th-century ideas of seizure to Ganias’s mirrored computer files.
What did the warrant authorize the government to seize?
What exactly did the government “seize” from Ganias?
In a retrial, a jury convicted Patino of second-degree murder. The judge sentenced him to life in prison. “What kind of man beats a 6-year-old boy to death?” Judge Netti Vogel asked with anger and disgust.(You can see a video of the sentencing hearing at
Do you believe Michael Patino had a reasonable expectation of privacy in these text messages? Explain your answer.
Summarize the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s reasons for overturning the trial judge’s decision.
Summarize the trial judge’s arguments for her decision.
According to the trial court judge, in which ones did he have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
List all of the texts that incriminated Michael Patino.
In your opinion, who has the stronger arguments? Defend your answer.
How well does our admonition,“Remember the innocents,” apply to Warshak and his mother? Explain your answer.
Summarize Steven Warshak’s arguments why the Fourth Amendment protected his private emails.
Describe the Berkeley auto-ship program and how it worked.
In your opinion, is the third party doctrine appropriate for the Digital Age?Defend your answer.
How important is the length of time involved and amount of information collected?
How important is the location where the Jeep parks?
How important is the “trespass” on Jones’s Jeep?
Summarize how the concurring opinion concluded that Jones had a reasonable expectation in the information gotten from the tracking.
Summarize how the majority applied the trespass doctrine to come to the conclusion that installing the GPS receiver and monitoring Jones’s Jeep’s movements was a search.
Identify the government interest and the intrusions on Jones’s property and privacy.
Justice Stevens distinguishes “throughthe-wall” from “off-the-wall” surveillance. What does he mean by this, and does he have a point? Do you agree that it should make a difference?
Summarize the arguments the dissent makes to support its conclusions that they aren’t searches and seizures.
Summarize the arguments the majority makes to support its conclusion that getting and recording thermal images constitute searches and seizures.
Describe exactly how the officers got the information.
Describe specifically the information agents Elliott and Haas got from Kyllo’s house.
Do we “voluntarily” deal with banks? Is it desirable or even possible to live in 2016 without your checking account, car loan, student loan, or credit card?
Summarize the dissent’s argument that Miller didn’t give up his Fourth Amendment right.
Summarize the majority opinion’s reasons for deciding that Miller did give up his Fourth Amendment rights by turning over the records.
List all facts relevant to deciding whether Mitch Miller gave up his Fourth Amendment rights in his bank records.
Should the police have been required to get a warrant here? Explain your answer.
Does Justice Douglas in his dissent have a point when he says that everyone will live in fear that what she or he says will be reported, or transmitted by radio, to the police? How does it relate to Professor Heffernan’s “eternal vigilance”?Explain.
Which is most intrusive: listening to James White in his home, in Harvey Jackson’s home, in a restaurant, on the street, or in a car? Or are they all about the same? Why? Why not?
Is the plurality saying it’s reasonable to expect people we confide in might be wired for sound to the police? Do you expect this?
How well do you believe the majority interrogated the criminal procedure ideals issues in the case? Explain your answer.
In your opinion, what’s the significance of the numbers Justice Souter cites in support of his argument?
In your opinion, was the drug-sniffing dog circling Roy Caballes’s car an enhancement of Officer Graham’s sense of smell? Explain your answer.
Summarize the arguments in the majority and dissenting opinions regarding whether the dog sniff was (or wasn’t) a search.
List all the officers’ acts that might qualify as ones in which there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If this case had to do with suspected domestic or foreign terrorists instead of child pornography, would your answer be the same? What if it had to do with growing marijuana, like the Williams case referred to in the opinion? Explain your answers.
In your opinion, should Officer Huston have to get a warrant for all, some, or none of the information on the laptop, cell phone, and flash drive? Defend your answer.
According to the court, how are laptops and cell phones different from physical places?
Identify the interests in the balance the court relied on to reach its conclusion.
State the elements of the private search doctrine.
Now, assume that you’re the judge. Rule on the motion to discover. State your reasons for your ruling on the motion.
Assume that you’re the prosecutor.Argue the case against discovery.
Assume that you’re the defendants’ lawyer. Argue the case in favor of discovery.
Summarize the facts presented by the government against the discovery of information to support a claim of selective enforcement of the drug laws.
Summarize the facts presented by the defendants in favor of the discovery of information to support a claim of selective enforcement of the drug laws.
Which doctrine is better? Back up your answer with the facts of the case and the arguments of the majority and concurring opinions
Summarize how Justice Black defines and defends the incorporation doctrine.
Summarize how Justice Frankfurter defines and defends the fundamental fairness doctrine.
Are “shocks the conscience,” offending the “community’s sense of fair play and decency,” “traditions and conscience of our people,” and “those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English speaking peoples” purely a matter of personal opinion, or
Does the police conduct in this case “shock your conscience”? Why or why not?
Why did the police actions violate Rochin’s due process?
Some of the best lawyers in the country crafted these powerful arguments on both sides of the balancing ideal. Recall that balancing refers to securing public safety for the whole community, while protecting the liberty and privacy of every individual in the community (see p. 6). Assume you’re
List Apple’s arguments to support its motion.
Exactly what is Apple asking for in its motion?
List the Government’s arguments to support its motion.
Exactly what is the Government asking for in its motion?
1. The real-party-in-interest rule is justified by the need to foreclose duplicative lawsuits, to assert all defenses in one action, and to avoid prejudice, in particular by ensuring that the resulting judgment will have res judicata effect. See The Ezra Charitable Trust v. Rent–Way, Inc., 136
7. May a federal court exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over parties joined under Federal Rule 13(h) to a compulsory counterclaim?
6. When does Federal Rule 13(h) authorize joinder of a party? Can the rule be used to assert a crossclaim against a person who is not already a party to the original action? Can a person who already is a party to the action be made an additional party under Federal Rule 13(h)? Should the rule be
3. In LIEBHAUSER v. MILWAUKEE ELEC. RY. & LIGHT CO., 180 Wis. 468, 193 N.W.522 (1923), a passenger on a railway street car sued for personal injuries allegedly sustained when the car collided with an automobile owned and driven by defendant Kroscher. Kroscher filed a crossclaim against the railway
2. Generally, a crossclaim is permissive so that the failure to raise it does not bar suit in a subsequent action. Why should this be so? Doesn’t this lead to a multiplicity of suits? Should the rule be different if the crossclaim is transactionally related to plaintiff’s original claim?Isn’t
1. Is the reasoning of the majority or dissenting opinion more persuasive? Should the fact that different subcontracts were involved, which arguably meant that different transactions were before the court, be determinative? What ways other than dismissal could be employed to deal with the
8. If defendant’s answer contains a counterclaim, must plaintiff assert a compulsory counterclaim to defendant’s counterclaim? Does it matter whether defendant’s counterclaim is compulsory or permissive? Is a counterclaim to a counterclaim likely to be so confusing that it will prevent the
7. If five days after defendant serves her answer she becomes the assignee of a claim against plaintiff and if the assigned claim arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as plaintiff’s claim against defendant, must defendant amend her answer and assert it? See Federal Rule 13(e). What if
6. By definition a counterclaim is not compulsory if it requires adding a party over whom“the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.” Rule 13(a)(1)(B). What if the party is a required party under Rule 19? See p. 696, infra.
5. In SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTION CO. v. PICKARD, 371 U.S. 57, 83 S.Ct. 108, 9 L.Ed.2d 31 (1962), the Southern Construction Company was the prime contractor on contracts with the United States for the rehabilitation of certain barracks at Fort Campbell, Tennessee, and Fort Benning, Georgia. The plumbing
4. Several exceptions to the compulsory counterclaim rule are set out in the text of Rule 13(a) itself. In UNION PAVING CO. v. DOWNER CORP.,672276 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1960), the court discussed the “pending action” language:* * * The purpose of this exception is seemingly to prevent one
3. Under what circumstances should defendant be permitted to assert a compulsory counterclaim after the applicable statute of limitations has run? Formerly Federal Rule 13(f) allowed a pleader to obtain leave of the court to assert a counterclaim that was omitted“through oversight, inadvertence,
2. Should a defendant who defaults and fails to file an answer be barred from later filing a transactionally related claim as a separate action? For a critical view, see Peterson, The Misguided Law of Compulsory Counterclaims in Default Cases, 50 Ariz. L. Rev. 1107 (2008).
1. Rule 13(a) is silent on the effect of failing to plead a compulsory counterclaim. It seems clear that an unasserted compulsory counterclaim cannot be raised in a subsequent suit in a federal court, see, e.g., Twin Disc, Inc. v. Lowell, 69 F.R.D. 64 (E.D. Wis. 1975), although courts differ as to
5. Can the value of a compulsory counterclaim be considered in determining whether the action meets the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction? See p. 282, supra. In Spectacor Management Group v. Brown, 131 F.3d 120, 121 (3d Cir. 1997), certiorari denied 523 U.S. 1120, 118
4. Rules for compulsory counterclaims differ among the states. The Minnesota rule, for example, is virtually identical to Federal Rule 13(a)(1)(A), except that the reference to“occurrence” is omitted, which has led that state’s courts to read the rule as intending to“insure that tort
3. Before the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a compulsory counterclaim fell within the ancillary jurisdiction of the federal court and so did not require an independent basis of subject-matter jurisdiction; by contrast a permissive counterclaim did require an independent basis of jurisdiction. See
2. The classic definition of transaction for purposes of a counterclaim is found in MOORE v. NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE, 270 U.S. 593, 46 S.Ct. 367, 70 L.Ed. 750 (1926).Plaintiff sought to compel defendant to install a price quotation ticker in plaintiff’s place of business. Defendant
1. Federal Rule 13(a) goes beyond the English and code practice by requiring a party to assert certain claims. Is this step desirable? See Kennedy,Counterclaims Under Federal Rule 13, 11 Hous. L. Rev. 255 (1974).
2. In an action arising on contract, any other cause of action arising on contract, and existing at the commencement of the action.
1. A cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint, as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, or connected with the subject of the action; and
3. Principles of res judicata, which prohibit the splitting of a cause of action into two or more lawsuits, may create incentives for the joinder of related claims even in the absence of a rule of compulsory joinder. See Blume, Required Joinder of Claims, 45 Mich. L. Rev. 797(1947). Thus, for

Showing 300 - 400 of 833

Civil Procedure Cases And Materials 11th Edition Jack Friedenthal, Arthur Miller, John Sexton, Helen Hershkoff - Solutions

Step by Step Answers