*To keep a running checklist of what's been covered in class as you go thru the course :

 Case Name : Matthews, Sec. of Health, Education and Welfare v. Eldridge

 Case Name : Fuentes v. Shevin

 Case Name : Marek v. Chesney

 Case Name : Bower v. Weisman

 Case Name : Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit

 Case Name : Conley v. Gibson-Black RR Workers

 Case Name : DM II, Ltd. V. Hospital Corp. of America

 Case Name : Doe v. United Services Life Insurance Co.

 Case Name : Kedra v. City of Philadelphia

 Case Name : Banque Indosuez v. Trifinery


*Crucial for success on issue-spotting exams :

Rule : An evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of Social Security disability benefit payments.

Rule : The P has a significant property interest in the stove and radio and is extended protection under the 14th Amendment. 

Rule : Chesny is not eligible to recover costs accrued after original offer.

Rule : 12(e) motion will only surivive if complaint is clearly ambiguous

Rule : heightened pleading standard not required when non-municipal action

Rule : 12b(6) motion will failure unless complaint will not succeed under any legal theory !

Rule : Partners in a corporation can be considered separate real parties of interest

Rule : Exceptions may be made for naming party of interest

Rule : When claims occur out of same transaction or occurence can join parties.

Rule : -compulsory issueà if you don’t use the, you lose them you can’t bring them later

*Also great for matching up case facts with novel facts on issue-spotting exams :

Facts : Eldridge was awarded disability benefits in June 1968 under the Social Security Act.  In March 1972 he received a questionnaire from the state about his medical condition.  Eldridge filled it out claiming his condition had not improved and included info from physicians.  The state got reports from his physician and psychiatrist.  The state sent him a letter stating a tentative determination was made that his disability ended in May 1972.  The letter stated reasons for proposed termination and advised him he could submit additional info to the state within a reasonable time.  He disputed the termination by letter but the final termination of his benefits was in May 1972.  He challenged the constitutionality of the administrative procedures.

Facts : P bought stove on a monthly payment plan, then buys a radio in same way.  P made payments on time, but withheld payment because of a problem with the stove.  Firestone repossessed the items by writ of replevin and the Sheriff seized the items.  Sheriff as part of the State triggers involvement of 14th Amendment.  The P was not afforded any procedure.

Facts : *3 officers, in response to a domestic disturbance call, shot and killed the son of respondent

Facts : The parties entered a contract whereby the husband was to provide the wife with numerous items including the townhouse at dispute. Three years passed between the contract signing and the break of relationship.  The husband claimed that the forum did not have jurisdiction over him. The court disagreed. The court did agree with the husband that the wife's complaint was deficient in that it failed to state which defendant which claim was made against, 12(e). The court dismissed the wife's claim for misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit as she failed to give sufficient facts and these claims mandated a higher standard of pleading, 9(b). The wife's failure to plead a substantial and unreasonable interference with the land is fatal to her claim for private nuisance.

Facts : Plaintiffs were stopped by police and notified their home was being searched and in the process their 2 dogs were killed.  Plaintiffs returned home to find both dogs shot and dead.  Officers found nothing relevant to their investigation.  Police lounged on Plaintiffs front lawn drinking and smoking for over an hour.  In separate incident officers entered home of 64 year old plaintiff without identifying.  Plaintiff was mourning death of his wife.  Officers proceeded to beat the Plaintiff without provocation.  Officers forced family on the floor and insulted them but found nothing relevant to investigation.  Plaintiffs both complain the officers were not sufficiently trained. 

Facts : 45 black railroad workers were fired and replaced with white workers and the Union did not give them the same protection it gave the white workers.  The blacks alleged the discrimination was a violation of the Railway Labor Act to fair representation from their agent. The black workers lost their seniority.  They asked for a declaratory judgment, injunction and damages.  The railway moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the D. Ct. granted it because the National Railroad Adjustment Board had exclusive jurisdiction.  Ct. of Appeals affirmed.

Facts : Action for equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duties.  Plaintiff contends they and the defendants are partners in ownership and defendants breached duties by opening a competing hospital.  Defense claims each entity must bring the action, or the whole entity must bring it. This action cannot be brought because the defendants can always veto it. 

Facts : Plaintiff is a law clerk and applies for health benefits.  His blood showed levels indicating alcohol abuse.  Doe offered to retake test but USLIC declined.  USLIC added $105 to his premium.  Doe got a private blood test and it was normal.  Doe alleged discrimination on sexual orientation.  USLIC alleged that by Doe being anonymous it was not allowing the company to defend itself.

Facts : Plaintiff sues on behalf of her children who are minors.  On Dec. 22 plaintiff’s husband and 2 of her children were arrested at gun point without probable cause, separated and questioned for several hours, and not informed of their constitutional rights and refused right to counsel.  They were handcuffed and beaten, sustaining serious injuries.  At the same time Elizabeth Rozanski was detained and questioned, not advised of her rights.  Defendants searched her room without warrant.  Dolores went to Roadhouse voluntarily and was coerced into signing search request.  On Dec. 29 police went to house and said they had papers for R. Rozanski to appear in court.  Rozanski and children were assaulted.  Rozanski, Kenneth and Joseph were charged on several counts and later acquitted.  Defendants do not want to be joined together (20) b/c as individuals they will not be treated fairly, but prejudiced.  Some officers did more egregious things than others.  The Plaintiff’s want them all joined b/c to sue a public officer is very difficult, they want to show the systemic nature of the harassment

Facts : Defendants do not dispute they are liable. D argues they can’t enforce the waiver b/c they would be precluded from bringing a claim in the future.  In NY all counterclaims are permissive so enforcing the waiver does not harm the D.  The court says if they enforce the waiver it ruins future claims for the D.  If they say it is permissive then it will be like it is in NYS and it will not harm the D.

*Also great for making a fact-pattern checklist of topics for tough issue-spotting exams :

Heading : Right to be Heard: Elements and History of Due Process

Heading : Remedies and Stakes

Heading : Attorneys’ Fees

Heading : Pleadings

Heading : Pleadings

Heading : Heightened Pleading Standards

Heading : Real Party of Interest

Heading : Naming party of interest

Heading : Joinder of Parties and Claims

Heading : Counterclaims