Civil Procedure II - Smith - Spring 2006_4

8/8/2019 Civil Procedure II - Smith - Spring 2006_4

1/25

Civ Pro II Outline

I. Preparing for trial

A. Discovery

1. Scopei. Before FRs

New stanar! party can iscover info fro" regular activities of ot#er party$ %ut NO& info t#e party #as e'clusively evote to proving its own case (work-product

privilege). *elly.

Relevance! co""on!sense +ug"ent.Concern s#ifting costs to Ps will %loc, "eritorious suits.

ii. FR 26Party can iscover-

1) Any "atter relevant to clai" or efense of any party (narrower t#an FR 34)

ou "ust re/uest (FR 34) ocs party oesn0t plan to use (if you want)Only re/uires escription until you as, (FR 34) for prouction

) IF it is not privilege (see FR 26b1)2) Reasona%ly calculate to lea to a"issi%le evience. FR 26b1.

FR 26 (a)(1)(d)! "anatory isclosures

A party #as 13 ays after FR 26f conference wit# ot#er sie to turn over to ot#er

sie-

1) na"es of people li,ely to #ave relevant info) copies or escriptions of ocu"ents t#at support its clai" or efense

2) any co"putation of a"ages (usually part of 4)

3) any insurance policy or agree"ent relevant to t#e case.

NO&5! t#is is wit#out %eing as,e.

FR 26 (b)(1) 6not privilege7! FR 26 (b)(3) 8or,!prouct privilege1) 8or, prouct privilege applies to "aterials prepare in anticipation of

litigation.

) Can %e iscovera%le on s#owing of su%stantial nee or unue #ars#ipParty can0t get info w9o su%stantial nee or unue #ars#ip. Also #ow

i"portant t#e info is to t#e case.

2) B:& even wit# 4$ a party can never get t#e "ental i"pressions9strategy of

t#e ot#er sie. ;ic,"an Part II. Core wor, prouct.FR 26 (b)(1) scope! 6any "atter not privilege7 "eans a%solute privilege.


2/25

uner FR 35 (b) or %y s#owing e'ceptional circu"stances! i"practical for B

to get sa"e ev %y ot#er "et#o.

c) B "ay #ave to pay A rsn%l e'penses an fees for getting t#at.

FR 26 (b)(5)If a party clai"s privilege$ it "ust escri%e "aterial an w#y it is privilige.

FR 26 (b)(2)! Proportionality re/uire"ent in scope of iscovery.

Court can li"it iscovery if-

1) it woul %e uplicative

) OR party see,ing iscovery alreay #a a"ple opportunity to isc. t#e info.2) OR li,ely gain of iscovery is low relative to cost.

FR 26c- protective orers

Court can pro#i%it isclosure


3/25

FR 31! service. All parties to a case "ust %e notifie of an are allowe to %e

present at any eposition.

A party can0t o "ore t#an 1 epositions.ou can0t epose one person twice wit#out per"ission.

FR 33 Interrogatoriesuestion or series of /uestions.

Only parties.Party "ust o researc# to fin an provie answers availa%le to it.

FR 33 d! %usiness recors. Party can respon %y turning over all recors B:&

"ust give irections as to w#ere to fin re/ueste info.

FR 34 Re/uests for prouction of ocu"ents or propertyApplies to nonparties. Broaer t#an FR 26. Cu""ings.

As, for ocs %y su%+ect "atter$ category$ li"it %y ti"e (etc.)

Pro%le"! petitioner often una%le to li"it re/uest enoug#.Also a party can avoi iscovery %ecause re/uest was too specific.

Courts ten to rea re/uests li%erally to prevent parties fro" #iing relevantinfo.

Fisi!g e"peditio!! clai" t#at a party is re/uesting info too %roaly$ solely to

inflict cost or recover irrelevant info.

FR 35 P#ysical e'a"! re/uesting party "ust get court orer.

8#en P puts #is p#ys conition in issue$ court will grant orer. Sc#lagen#auf.Re/uesting party "ust s#ow clear relevance an usefulness of e'a".

FR 35b! if court grants re/uest for p#ys e'a"$ an patient wants to see t#e report$

#e "ust waive octor!patient privilege an su%"it any ot#er octor0s reports t#atare relevant. FR 35a! 8#en in+ury #appene to so"eone not co"petent to %ring

a lawsuit$ ot#er sie can get e'a" of t#e person allege to %e in+ure.

FR 36 Re/uests for a"ission! party can e"an ot#er sie answer yes!no or

a"it!eny /uestions. :se to strea"line info t#at will %e use in trial.

FR 3# Conse/uences for actions in iscovery. 3#c! failure to isclose$ false or

"isleaing isclosure$ failure to a"it. ou on0t #ave to a"it so"et#ing youon0t t#in, t#e ot#er sie will %e a%le to prove.

Responent #as uty to fin answer. *elly. Duty to correct errors! supple"ent

prior responses if you fin "ista,es or learn "ore info.! a continuing o%ligation tofulfill iscovery re/uests. Only epositions on0t continue.

Non!party options to avoi costly iscovery re/uest

FR 26b2$ FR 26c. FR 45! court can /uas# a su%poena to li"it e'posure of anonparty.

2


4/25

3


5/25

II. Fining t#e applica%le law

$%&'! consier t#e state law very carefully to see possi%le conflict w9 fe law.

1. :nli,ely for a court to fin an FR is not consistent w9 R5A or Constitution %c t#is

"eans SCO&:S$ Congress$ an rules avisory co""ittee were all wrong. (see Burlington). eory$ %c 8al,er was not perfectly on t#is trac,.

2. Byr is an outlier. It can %e invo,e$ %ut t#e argu"ent will %e #ar to win$

particularly if t#e 6countervailing fe interest7 is so"et#ing ifferent t#at t# A". +ury trials.

;arest /uestion is often t#e first! is t#ere a coifie fe law on point

8al,er! fe rule loo,e o%viously on point$ yet court re+ecte.

Stewart! fe rule (statute) rule not on point$ %ut t#ere was strong counterargu"ent. (A= C=! No effect gvn f" selection clauses.

Fe stat!courts "ay transfer a case>iscretion!so arg it oesn0t #ave to %e on point9irectly conflict.


6/25

@


7/25

;yp. New FR t#at personal in+ury clai"s on0t accrue until P iscovers.First! Is t#ere a coifie fe rule on point (sufficiently %roa to control or irectly conflicts).

;ere! #ar to argue t#e new FR oes not govern SO=.Secon! is it consistent w9 R5A (relate to enforce"ent of rig#ts$ not su%stance of rig#ts).

D can argue it affects #is su%stantive rig#t to only #ave to worry a%out a suit for so long. Also can %e seen to

reefine causation an in+ury.

ir! Consistent w9 Constitution (argua%ly proceural).! sa"e counterargu"ent.SO! string argu"ent against applying t#is fe rule.

A. Cases6Proceural7! R5A an Const tests

&ig#test case! Burlington! A= law allowe penalty w#en a D appeale lost. FR& 3 allows so"e sanction c#arges for frivolous appeals. 8#y can0t a fe court apply %ot# A

fe +uge coul c#arge penalties %ut less t#an 1E of +ug"ent. FR& 3 allows penalty

only for frivolous suits$ an t#us can0t penalie non!frivolous appeals$ A= rule woul$ soconflict. FR& 3 constitutional %c it is at least argua%ly proceural.

Consistent w9 R5A %c it affects process of enforcing rig#ts$ not t#e rig#ts t#e"selves.

Foru" s#opping

A SO= can %e outco"e!eter"inative$ in w#ic# case fe ct s# apply state SO= to"aintain unifor"ity. or,.


8/25

Court "ust carefully consier w#at P allege AND w#at it can %e inferre P coul allege.

Sufficient co"plaint! ti"e an place of incient$ parties involve$ in+ury resulting$ reliefsoug#t.

8#en efect is legal! court can is"iss.

8#en efect is factual! court can orer P to a"en$ or is"iss. Nurses.

12b6- ca! be co!verted to FR 56 *+ ,otio! if t#ere0s an affiavit attac#e$ or if D

answers w9 "atter outsie t#e pleaings.


9/25

a. Buren on "otion itself

clear9convincing evience)L

() 8#en D is

final +ug"ent$ appeal is O*

iv.Policy argu"ent

a. SH pro"otes efficiency.


10/25

evientiary %asis for a reasona%le +ury to fin for t#e party on t#e issue$ court "ay grant

H


11/25

Courts usually say t#at of prty c #v gtn t#at evience earlier it will say it s#oul #ave.

D. Moluntary Dis"issal an Default

1. Moluntary Dis"issal

P allowe$ at any t" B3 +ug"ent$ to voluntarily is"iss case wit#out pre+uice.

Reasons-

Sue wrong party

Principal evience or witness not availa%leParty t#in,s it will lose

SO= going to run out an can sue elsew#ere


12/25

at least a party w#o #as appeare #as s#own interest in efening.

courts on0t want to enter ef. +ug"ent against a party %c of action of attorney.v. 55 (b)(1)! court can enter +ug"ent in 6su" certain7! t#e a"nt in t#e clai" w#ic# is

not in ispute. 5'- contract says! if %reac#$ %reac#ing party will pay e'actly .

vi.


13/25

B. Rig#t to Hury &rial

1. Malue of +ury trials

Pro Con

uality

"ore people to consier

uestionAnti!Bias

1 ppl less li,ely %e %iase

Perspective! "e"%ers of co""unity

reasona%le perspective=egiti"acy to verict

pu%lic #a role in +uging

Civic9policy! #aving pu%lic participate #elps pu%lic

unerstan

=egal process

C#ec,s power of gov.

:npreicta%le

+urors can %e inappropriately influence

Hurors isintereste!on0t want % t#ere=ac, of e'pertiseInefficient

Bc +uiciary is inepenent$ +uges less

li,ely to %e swaye %y gov pressure

. 8#y c#oose +uge or +ury to ecie certain /uestions

Huge Hury

=aw


14/25

8#en it applies$ it applies to %ot# parties. 5it#er can e"an it B:& FR 3! party "ust

re/uest +ury trial w9in 1 ys of last pleaing. IF not! t#e rig#t is waive.

Cases "i'ing legal an e/uita%le clai"s

If you #ave legal an e/uity clai"s in action$ "ust ecie legal clai"s first$ an +ury "ustecie t#e clai"s. Beacon. is allows +ury0s +ug"ent of facts to control +uge0s later

ecision of facts for t#e e/uity clai"s.

Party can0t get e/uita%le relief w#ere t#ere is possi%ility of legal re"ey.

So court will l, past la%els parties use for clai"s to ", sure one party not trying toc#eat ot#er out of H&.

5ven if e/uity issues preo"inate$ law issues "ust %e resolve first$ an %y +ury. Dairy

ueen.If AN issues overlapping %twn e/ an leg clai"s$ t#ey "ust %e ecie %y +ury 5M5N if

legal clai"s are only inciental.

3. =aw (rig#t to H&) or 5/uity (no rig#t to H&)

NO&5! if case is a%t negligence in car cras#$ t#e test oes NO& focus on car cras#es B3

n A"$ %ut neg$ w#ic# i e'ist.

i. Da"ages > always legal

B:& +ust %c court is orering "oney pay"ent is not enoug#! it "ay %e restitution>e/uity.

&est- (Curtis)

1! if court w #v iscretion a%t wt#r to grant relief

on a legal clai"$ t#ere is a guarantee of relief if case is prove.on e/uita%le rest cl"! ct can ecie not to grant relief even if P wins.

! Congressional la%el! i it call t#e relief "gs or restitution

2! Does relief focus on P or Dlegal clai"s focus on #ar" to P.

restitution focuses on wt#r D #as %n un+ustly enric#e

3! punitive "gs usually legal

ii. In+unctive relief > e/uita%le

iii. AN +ug"ent uner DecH s# %e treate as at law for t# A". rt to H&. Beacon.

iv. If action i not e'ist %efore t# A"$ an Congress create %y statute- classic legal relief. B:& +ust %c court isorering "oney pay"ent is not enoug#! it "ay %e restitution > e/uity.

&ull recognie test %ut gv "ore weig#t to part 4$ +ust %c it was #ar to figure out

41.

13


15/25

C#auffers! uty of fair representation > e/uita%le$ %ut collective %argaining

Agree"ent > legal. Re"ey not restitution$ so +ury trial s#oul %e availa%le. Brennanconcurrence! not rt to "a,e courts o wor, of #istorians.

=0s rig#t to reta,e property > legal. Pernell. Rt to reinstate"ent w9 %ac,pay > e/uity.

M. 5ffect of a Hug"ent

Res +uicata clai" preclusion$ an collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) govern t#e effect of

prior +ug"ents in su%se/uent suits.CanGt re!litigate t#ings previously litigate.

Apply preclusion octrine of +urisiction t#at "ae previous +ug"ent.

$%&'! say 6IF +urisiction is a "utuality +urisiction7

A. Diff %twn CP an Stare Decisis (Rus#)

*5 ifference!

CP applies only to first provision of suit! P an original D$ not future potential parties.SD applies "ore e'pansively! %ins all future litigants.

SD %roaer in so"e respects$ narrower in ot#ers.

CP "ore e'pensive %c it is virtually a%solute.

!arg t#at it see"s unfair in a particular case al"ost never wor,s.

SD is "ore a strong presu"ption t#an an a%solute rule. Courts can overrule if t#ey ecie preceent is now

pro%le"atic.CP efine %y factual test! 6t#e car accient.7

SD applies to /uestions of law! w#at is stanar of care in car a'!!B:& SD will apply to ientical applications of law to fact.

CP also %loc,s clai"s t#at were not litigate

SD only applies to issues court #as ecie.

CP in inter+urisictional! if P sue in CA$ #e can0t sure for sa"e & T O in N.SD applies only wit#in t#e +urisiction.

SD applies ,in of unfairly w#en u consier t#at w#en a %a lawyer loses a case$ it will %in parties w#o i

not get to argue an "ay #ave argue a %atter case.

!we #ave to assu"e t#e %enefits of t#e octrine will outweig# t#ese potential costs.

SD purpose- 5fficiency$ Certainty! ppl nee to ,now w#at t#ey can or can0t o$ %ase on

earlier ecisions. Fairness. =i"its a%ility of +uges to i"pose t#eir own ecisions.

B. Clai" Preclusion (Res +uicata)

1. enerally

;yp. Bro,e ar"! can0t sue again for

pro%a%ly can0t sue for "g to watc# in sa"e incient.

Bar to su%se/uent suits involving t#e sa"e parties an t#ose in privity wit# t#e"$ w#en t#e prior suit ene w9 a +ug"ent on t#e "erits.

C#ange in law oesn0t c#ange application of clai" preclusion. A final +ug"ent is

entitle to preclusive effect.


16/25

passe w#en P pai +ug"ent. P owne car w#en D repossesse it. P aware

a"ages for entire value of car.) Sa"e parties. Inclues parties in privity (not always applie to e"ployer!e"ployee).


17/25

2. 5le"ents

1) Sa"e issue

Cro"well! (Suit ! ifferent %ons t#an in Suit 1$ %c %ons transfera%le an P "ay

#ave %een vali %uyer)


18/25

ii. Issue preclusion for FR 12(b)(6) is"issal

An issue can0t %e preclue %y is"issal uner 12b6 %c t#at fining is even if #e i

"a,e faces u can0t win! not w#et#er or not #e "ae faces. FR 41b! unless ot#erwise specifie$ 12b6 is"issal will %e treate as on t#e "erits.

B:& Hustice Scalia sai t#is oesn0t apply for clai" preclusion purposes. SO answer is

un,nown.

iii. Consent +ug"ents *ey is w#at parties intene. ;anover

?. ;yp. ree!car cras#. P$ D$ R. Pure cont neg state$ no co"pulsory counterclai" rule. Psue %ot# D an R. No crossclai"s. Special verict! P neg$ D neg$ R neg.

Secon suit. R sue D. Can eit#er party assert issue preclusion on neg No$ %c t#ose issues were notnecessary to t#e +ug"ent! c #v ispose of case w9 fining of neg for eit#er D party.

;yp. Sa"e$ %ut gen verict for P to recover against %ot# D an R. Fro" t#is gen verict$ we can infer 1!P not neg$ an ! D neg an R neg. Finings of neg for D an R were necessary for t#e +ug"ent. If ucancelle eit#er$ t#e outco"e w c#ange! eit#er no recovery$ or only recovery against one of t#e Ds. ;yp. Suppose P #a green lig#t$ %ut %ot# D an R ran re lig#ts. is woul s#ow %ot# D an R wereneg. NO& necessarily sa"e issues if D sues R. uestion of w#et#er D an9or R0s neg cause P0s "g "ay

not %e sa"e issue as w#et#er D or R cause eac# ot#er0s "gs.

@. C#allenge of efining 6sa"e issue7;yp. A trips on B0s lan$ sues. B lost on efense #e i not own lan. SM! B owne t#e property. IP w#en A sues later for tree falling on carIssue! w#et#er #e owns t#e property! B:& can %e ivie! w#et#er #e owne property at t" of first

incient an secon issue! w#et#er #e owne it at secon incient.

But i"agine t#e secon incient #appene +ust a ay after Still possi%le #e sol it. Courts treat it t#is way!always possi%le facts #ave c#ange. D s# %ear t#e %uren to s#ow it is not t#e s" issue. ;e s# #v to say

in #is answer #ow t#ings #v c#ange an w#y it s# not %e preclue.

Nor"ally t#e party trying preclue an issue #as t#e %uren of s#owing w#y! #ow it "eetst#e four factors. 8#en it naturally see"s t#e issue "ay #ave c#ange (esp. %ase oin

facts) courts put %uren on party arguing IP s# apply. B:& w#en it see"s o%vious t#at

issue s# %e preclue (suc# as 6sol it t#e nig#t %wtn t#e incients) ct puts %uren on

party see,ing to avoi IP.

. Reasons for C5 in general

5fficiency Fairness- no incentive to "a,e %ig eal in t#e first suit

Finality- clai" in first suit is not uner"ine. Hug"ent of court represents resolutionof clai"s %etween parties.

K.


19/25

asserte against a prior P w#o #a si"ply switc#e aversaries! w#y s# s#e get two %ites at t#e

apple


20/25

MI. Post!&rial Corrections of 5rror

A.rouns for See,ing Relief fro" District Courts FR 5/$ FR 60

;ulson (/uic, case stuy! integrate into separate FR 60)

;uslon sue RR. =ost.


21/25

?.Newly iscovere infor"ation!FR 60

Relief is usually new trial! not auto"atic win.

i. FR 60(a)- clerical "ista,es f" oversig#t or o"issions. No ti"e li"its.

ii. FR 60(b)! si' reasons DC can review a case for error-

$- ti"e li"its

(1)


22/25

i. Pro- principle of finality an efficiency in speeing ecision on t#e "erits

ii. Con- esire to correct o%viously incorrect ecisions since t#ey will s#ape t#e trial$an "ay save t#e e'pense of a new trial.

2.* 712/1- courts of appeals #ave +urisiction only over final +ug"entsFinality refers to clai"s$ not issues.

DonGt want piece"eal litigation

3.* 712/2- Interlocutory orers

7 12/2(a)(1)! an interlocutory orer t#at enies a PGs re/uest for an in+unction isappeala%le i""eiately.

7 12/2(b)! allows for appeal of ot#er interlocutory orers in li"ite circu"stances.5'. iscovery orers

District court "ust certify t#e issue is a controlling /uestion of law! su%stantially

su%+ect isagree"ent$ appeal woul #elp en trial. So"eti"es resolution willeffectively en "erits.

Party "ust file appeal wit#in 1 ays

CA #as iscretion to not #ear appeal$ unli,e FR 54(b)

?. FR 54(b) Hug"ent on "ultiple clai"s or involving ifferent parties

i. If 1V clai"(s) of relief present in action$ or "ultiple parties$ court can a+uicate 1V$ %utnot all$ clai"s involve$ %ut it is NO& consiere a FINA= +ug"ent. Orers can

t#us %e appeale.ii. No iscretion (unli,e interlocutory orers). Appeals court "ust #ear it

iii. Policy > parties s#oul %e a%le to appeal w#en li%eral +oiner rules i"pose #ars#

%uren.iv. =i%erty re+ects contention t#at 54(b) applies$ %c t#ere! only one clai" espite re/uests

for "ultiple re"eies. us orer was never appeala%le uner * 7 12/1. Not

appeala%le uner * 7 12/2 eit#er v.


23/25

t#ere are "ultiple clai"s in a suit. If DC resolves one or "ore %ut not all clai"s$

it "ay %e possi%le to appeal t#at clai". If DC ecies clai" 1$ %ut clai" willre/uire a trial$ party can appeal clai" 1 IF DC "a,es an e'press eter"ination

t#at t#e ecision t#at is final$ an no reason for elay$ AND t#e clai" appeale is

not so relate to t#e ot#er clai"s t#at t#ey are %etter +uge toget#er.=i%erty! !not applica%le %c all one clai".

Rule ca"e after R5A (SCO&:S can0t a%rige$ enlarge$ or "oify su%stantive rig#ts)is see"s to counter statute 11! it see"s t#ere is a final +ug"ent on t#e issue.

NO&5! #ow can it %e t#at SCO&:S can create a rule t#at0s inconsistent wit# t#e FR ant#us a congressional statute! Rules 5na%ling Act.

B:& 54b +ust as,s &C to %alance co"peting interests of fairness to party w#o lost

an wants to see, appeal wit# interest t#at +uicial resources are not waste.us! t#e rule oes not allow auto"atic appeal.

=i%erty court assu"e w#at &C sai was final.

3) * 7 12/2(b)! a +uge0s orer t#at is ot#erwise not appeala%le (interlocutory) %utt#e answer to t#e /uestion will tell w#at final ecision s#oul %e$ &C "ay certify

t#at t#e /uestion is a controling /uestion of law on w#ic# t#ere0s su%stantial

groun for ifference of opinion$ an resolution of t#e issue will avance

resolution of t#e suit itself.

Re/s- 1) cert f" DC stating /uestion #as a%ove /ualities AND ) "a,e petitionto court of appeals noting success in 1 w9in 1 ays! ct of appeals can still

re+ect. Mery rarely invo,e or per"itte.?) Collateral orer (interlocutory)

So"e cases t#at woul %e unreviewa%le later so as to +ustify i""eiate appeal.

Co#en. State law re/0 Ps in s#are#olers0 erivative suits to pay %on in case suit is foun to %e"eritless. Ps sue$ clai"e i not #v post %on %c it sue in fe ct an uner 5rie ocrine$ nore/ to follow state law on t#is "atter. SCO&:S isagree.

Not a a final ecision$ not in+unctive relief$ not "ulti!clai"$ No certification f" &C uner *

7 12/2b

Can still %e accepte! actual issue! w#et#er P #as to post %on is collateral (separate) f" "ainaction in case.

!isn0t t#is usually true (PH or w#et#er process is proper)

Bc it is co"pletely inepenent of suit0s "erits! it see"s t#ey "ig#t not %e a%le to appeal it later.

By allowing t#is appeal$ we avoi pro%le" of #aving D win$ as, for %on to pai$ %ut t#ere isn0tone an Ps can0t pay costs as ecie in case.

Point of li"iting PH over so"e Ds is t#at it w %e unfair to force D to litigate in t#e foru". 8#ile

waiting for ecision on #is "otion to is"iss for lac, of PH$ #e #as to s#ow up an pay "oney to

litigate in t#at foru". 8#y isn0t t#is a collateral orer &ec#nically$ t#e +ug"ent can %e set asieon appeal$ B:& practically$ D still #a to pay t#at cost.

Discovery "otions generally not appeala%le. None of t#e ? a%ove woul apply. SO-

@)


24/25

?. Collateral orer W 11 N! allows i""eiate appeal

@. u will never raise t#e appeal

Fairness! one party "ig#t ecie appealingevery orer is goo litigation strategy. 8ealt#y

D will ,eep appealing.

5fficiency! ct rules t#ere is PH$ u #v

trial$ %ut CA says t#ere was no PH$

case never s# #ave #appene

Fairness- if appeal is put off$ so"e parts of case "ig#t not e'ist later

Accuracy- in iscovery "atters$ verylittle case law. Courts #ave to "a,e

up t#ings as t#ey go along. Orers"ig#t lea to fewer cases in future.

C. Stanars of Appellate Review

1) De novo! for"al eference to trial court. Party t#at loses in trial court gets secon

%ite at apple. Deals wit# finings of law$ not fact.

Bose (e novo review of "alice clai"$ to eter"ine if clear9convincing evience

e'iste)) Clear error (so"ew#at eferential)

NO&5! only for trial +uges$ not +urors

2) A%use of iscretion X oesnGt "atter t#at court of appeals woul #ave one so"et#ingifferently.


25/25

incentive to appeal.

;yp. 8or,ers co"p suit %y wiow. Only ev! "an was alone$ painting #ouse$ on a laer.Foun ea at foot of laer. Cause of eat# was #eart attac,. Rule! spouse can get wor,ers

co"p %enefits if #is eat# was in t#e course of e"ploy"ent. Assu"e s#e wins if s#e can s#ow

#e fell first$ t#en #a #eart attac,$ %ut can0t recover if #e #a a #eart attac, first.Huge conclues fall ca"e %efore #eart attac,! wiow can recover.

S# CA reverse fining

!8#at #appene first > /uestion of fact. So no! eference to &C +uge0s finings of fact.

Civil Procedure II - Smith - Spring 2006_4

Documents

Transcript of Civil Procedure II - Smith - Spring 2006_4