DOCSLIB.ORG

Practicing Law in Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Practicing Law in Oregon Thursday, June 22, 2017 9 a.m.–4:15 p.m. 4 General CLE or Practical Skills credits and 2 Ethics credits PRACTICING LAW IN OREGON The materials and forms in this manual are published by the Oregon State Bar exclusively for the use of attorneys. Neither the Oregon State Bar nor the contributors make either express or implied warranties in regard to the use of the materials and/or forms. Each attorney must depend on his or her own knowledge of the law and expertise in the use or modification of these materials. Copyright © 2017 OREGON STATE BAR 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road P.O. Box 231935 Tigard, OR 97281-1935 Practicing Law in Oregon ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Schedule . v Faculty . vii 1. Oregon Discovery . 1–i — Leslie Johnson, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Portland, Oregon — Kevin Sali, Kevin Sali LLC, Portland, Oregon 2. Oregon Pleadings and Parties: Tips to Consider and Traps to Avoid . 2–i — Bonnie Richardson, Folawn Alterman & Richardson LLP, Portland, Oregon 3. Depositions in Oregon . 3–i — Joseph Franco, Holland & Knight LLP, Portland, Oregon 4. The Disciplinary Process: Basics You Need to Know . 4–i — Dawn Evans, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, Oregon State Bar, Tigard, Oregon 5. Local Practice in the District of Oregon—2017 . 5–i — C. Marie Eckert and Vanessa L. Triplett, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Portland, Oregon 6. Oregon’s Judicial Branch. 6–i — The Honorable David Brewer, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem, Oregon Practicing Law in Oregon iii Practicing Law in Oregon iv SCHEDULE 8:00 Registration 9:00 Oregon Discovery—Rules and Conventions F Distinguishing federal and state practice in Oregon F Pursuing records of parties and nonparties F Usual timing and the practice for scheduling and then getting adjustments F Getting public records and discovery with the government F Local discovery for foreign action F Court assistance in disputes Leslie Johnson, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Portland Kevin Sali, Kevin Sali LLC, Portland 9:45 Oregon Pleadings and Parties: Tips to Consider and Traps to Avoid F Pleadings that make Oregon different from other places F Bringing parties into a case: know the rules F Ultimate facts and defenses: how to assert them and what must be included F Practical considerations in discovery and trial Bonnie Richardson, Folawn Alterman & Richardson LLP, Portland 10:30 Break 10:45 Depositions in Oregon F Oregon’s written and unwritten rules governing depositions F Using depositions at trial Joseph Franco, Holland & Knight LLP, Portland 11:45 Lunch 12:30 The Disciplinary Process: Basics You Need to Know F What they do: Client Assistance Office, Disciplinary Counsel Office, and the State Professional Responsibility Board F How to respond—a defense perspective F Roundtable—common complaints, unique features in Oregon, negotiated outcomes, and recent cases Moderator: Dawn Evans, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, Oregon State Bar, Tigard Carolyn Alexander, State Professional Responsibility Board, Portland Daniel Atkinson, Client Assistance Office, Oregon State Bar, Tigard Wayne Mackeson, Wayne Mackeson PC, Oregon City 2:30 Break 2:45 Local Practice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon F The importance of civility and professionalism F Considerations during initial case filing F Discovery disputes (minimize them) F Summary judgment practice F Trial practice C. Marie Eckert, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Portland Practicing Law in Oregon v SCHEDULE (Continued) 3:30 May It Please the Court—An Overview of the Oregon Court System The Honorable David Brewer, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem 4:15 Adjourn Practicing Law in Oregon vi FACULTY Carolyn Alexander, State Professional Responsibility Board, Portland. Prior to her retirement, Ms. Alexander was a Senior Assistant Attorney General with the Oregon Department of Justice Appellate Division, where she handled civil and criminal appeals at the state and federal levels. She currently serves on the State Professional Responsibility Board and on the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists. She previously chaired the DOJ’s Ethics Committee for many years, and she served on the OSB Legal Ethics Committee. Daniel Atkinson, Client Assistance Office, Oregon State Bar, Tigard. Mr. Atkinson is an Assistant General Counsel in the Oregon State Bar’s Client Assistance Office. Prior to joining the bar, he spent ten years in private practice at two small general practice firms, first in Silverton and then in Portland. The Honorable David Brewer, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem. Justice Brewer was elected to the Supreme Court in May 2012 and joined the court in January 2013. He previously served as Chief Judge on the Oregon Court of Appeals and as a circuit judge for the Lane County Circuit Court, where he presided over many civil and criminal trials and settled many more cases through the court’s settlement conference program. Justice Brewer serves on the Oregon State Bar Legal Services Task Force. C. Marie Eckert, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Portland. Ms. Eckert is an experienced business litigator who has handled a wide range of complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts, including contract and business valuation disputes, business torts, lender liability and creditors’ rights claims, insurance coverage actions, and employment, trusts and estates, and environmental litigation. She is a member of the Federal Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the Multnomah Bar Association, and Oregon Women Lawyers. Dawn Evans, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, Oregon State Bar, Tigard.Ms. Evans is Disciplinary Counsel and Director of Regulatory Services at the Oregon State Bar, administering the attorney discipline office and the bar admissions department. She served for nine years as the Director of Professional Standards at the State Bar of Michigan and worked for eighteen years in attorney discipline at the State Bar of Texas, including five years as Chief Disciplinary Counsel. She is a former president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel and has held positions as a director of the Texas Young Lawyers Association and president of the Walker County Bar Association. Joseph Franco, Holland & Knight LLP, Portland. Mr. Franco focuses his practice in all stages of litigation. He is experienced in managing complicated discovery, taking and defending key depositions, arguing dispositive motions, and serving as the lead lawyer in trials, arbitrations, and mediations in matters involving breach of contract, legal malpractice, insurance coverage, unlawful trade practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and the protection of trade secrets. He is a member of the Oregon Bench and Bar Commission on Professionalism, the Multnomah Bar Association Court Liaison Committee, and the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. Leslie Johnson, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Portland. Ms. Johnson joined Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP in May 2017, after 21 years in private practice in Portland. Her focus has always been on business litigation and business law, with an emphasis on contract issues, corporate governance, shareholder agreements and disputes, employment law, business and real property transactions, franchise disputes, securities, and lawyer and accountant malpractice. She is a member of the Multnomah Bar Association, the Clark County (Washington) Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the Oregon State Bar House of Delegates, and the American Bar Association House of Delegates. Ms. Johnson has spoken at local and state bar association CLE events on practical litigation skills, and she coauthored chapters of the Oregon State Bar publications Insurance, Federal Civil Litigation, and Civil Pleading and Practice. Ms. Johnson is licensed to practice in Oregon and Washington. Practicing Law in Oregon vii FACULTY (Continued) Wayne Mackeson, Wayne Mackeson PC, Oregon City. Mr. Mackeson is primarily a criminal defense trial lawyer who also researches, writes, and argues cases in the Oregon appellate courts and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He also defends lawyers accused of ethics violations and children in juvenile delinquency cases. Bonnie Richardson, Folawn Alterman & Richardson LLP, Portland. Ms. Richardson is a trial lawyer who represents clients in cases involving legal and professional malpractice, trust and estate litigation, complex commercial litigation, and insurance coverage disputes. She is a member of the Multnomah Bar Foundation board of directors, the Oregon Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the Oregon Judicial Diversity Coalition, the OSB Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 Drafting Committee, the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, the Federal Bar Association, and Oregon Women Lawyers. She also serves as an arbitrator for the Oregon State Bar Fee Arbitration Program. Ms. Richardson is a frequent speaker at continuing legal education seminars for attorneys for the Oregon State Bar, Multnomah Bar Association, the National Business Institute, and many other organizations. She is the recipient of the 2016 Multnomah Bar Association Professionalism Award and the 2009 Multnomah Bar Association Pro Bono Award of Merit. Kevin Sali, Kevin Sali LLC, Portland. Mr. Sali represents individuals and business entities in criminal, civil, and regulatory matters, including high-stakes major felony trials, complex white collar cases, and large-scale environmental actions. Practicing Law in Oregon viii Chapter 1 Oregon Discovery LESLIE JOHNSON Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP Portland, Oregon KEVIN SALI Kevin Sali LLC Portland, Oregon Contents I. Overview . 1–1 A. Introduction . 1–1 B. Rules and Resources . .1–1 C. Scope of Discovery. .1–1 D. Planning and Balancing . .1–2 E. Timing. .1–2 II. Discovery of Parties . 1–3 A. Requests for Production or Inspection. .1–3 B. Requests for Admission . .1–4 C. Interrogatories (Federal Court Only) . 1–5 III. Discovery of Nonparties . 1–5 A. Subpoenas for Documents or Things . 1–5 B. Interstate Discovery . 1–6 C. Public Records Requests . 1–6 IV. Review of Major Distinctions Between Federal and State Court Practice . 1–7 A. Initial Disclosures . 1–7 B. Interrogatories . 1–7 C. Time Limits on the Conduct of Discovery. .1–7 D. Experts . 1–7 V. Getting Court Assistance .
Recommended publications
  • Compulsory Counterclaim Committee

    Compulsory Counterclaim Committee

    Report of Boyd-Graves Conference Compulsory Counterclaim Committee Members of the Committee to Study a Proposal to Adopt a Compulsory Counterclaim Rule are Stuart Raphael, Ham Bryson, Bob Mitchell, David Anthony, Jack Costello, Kent Sinclair, Lisa O’Donnell, Bill Mims, and Robin Wood, Chairman. The Committee has met thrice by conference call: on March 25, 2008, April 30, 2008, and May 22, 2008. In the initial conference the Chairman polled members of the Committee to determine if there was a consensus among members of the Committee in favor of a compulsory counterclaim. Seven members of the Committee said they were in favor of a compulsory counterclaim, and two members of the Committee expressed reservations about a compulsory counterclaim rule. In response to an inquiry about a compulsory counterclaim rule in other states, Kent thought that over 40 states had adopted a compulsory counterclaim rule. The Chairman asked members to state their reasons for their position. Those members who were in favor of the rule felt that it was good public policy for all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence to be joined in one action. A compulsory counterclaim rule promotes judicial economy and efficiency. Under Rule 1:6, the plaintiff is required to join all claims that arise out of an identified conduct, transaction or occurrence, or later be barred from bringing a second or subsequent action against the same opposing party (parties) arising out the same conduct, transaction or occurrence. The adoption of a compulsory counterclaim rule would require the opposing party to state a claim arising out of the conduct identified in the complaint, crossclaim, or third party claim.
  • The New Federal Rules of Procedure As Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code, 23 Marq

    The New Federal Rules of Procedure As Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code, 23 Marq

    Marquette Law Review Volume 23 Article 2 Issue 4 June 1939 The ewN Federal Rules of Procedure as Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code Daniel C. Hopkinson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Daniel C. Hopkinson, The New Federal Rules of Procedure as Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code, 23 Marq. L. Rev. 159 (1939). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol23/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NEW FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE COMPARED WITH THE FORMER FEDERAL EQUITY RULES AND THE WISCONSIN CODE DANIEL K HOPIINSON T OA considerable extent, the practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the same as the practice under the Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code. There are, however, a great many minor and a few substantial differences. The lawyer who has tried suits in equity in the federal courts will be interested in knowing to what extent the practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure conforms to the practice under the former Federal Equity Rules. The lawyer who has engaged in litigation in the Wisconsin courts or who has tried actions at law in the federal district courts in Wisconsin will examine the new federal rules with a view to determining the devia- tion from the Wisconsin practice.
  • Panhandle Collections, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Appellee, V

    Panhandle Collections, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Appellee, V

    Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 09/30/2021 01:12 PM CDT - 924 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports PANHANDLE COLLECTIONS v. SINGH Cite as 28 Neb. App. 924 Panhandle Collections, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, appellee, v. Kuldip Singh, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed September 29, 2020. No. A-19-933. 1. Courts: Appeal and Error. The district court and higher appellate courts generally review appeals from the county court for error appear- ing on the record. 2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. 3. ____: ____. In instances when an appellate court is required to review cases for error appearing on the record, questions of law are nonetheless reviewed de novo on the record. 4. Jurisdiction: Parties: Waiver. The absence of an indispensable party to a controversy deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction to deter- mine the controversy and cannot be waived. 5. Parties. The language of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-323 (Reissue 2016) tracks the traditional distinction between the necessary and indispen- sable parties. 6. Parties: Words and Phrases. Necessary parties are parties who have an interest in the controversy, and should ordinarily be joined unless their interests are separable so that the court can, without injustice, proceed in their absence. 7. ____: ____. Indispensable parties are parties whose interest is such that a final decree cannot be entered without affecting them, or that termina- tion of controversy in their absence would be inconsistent with equity.
  • United States District Court Central District of California

    United States District Court Central District of California

    1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 11 TYLER ARMES, an individual, Case № 2:20-cv-03212-ODW (PJWx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 14 MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AUSTIN RICHARD POST p/k/a POST AMENDED COMPLAINT MALONE, an individual; ADAM KING 15 FEENEY p/k/a FRANK DUKES, an 16 individual; UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; 17 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Defendant Austin Richard Post, professionally known as Post Malone (“Post”), 21 is a well-known musical artist. (See generally First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 1, ECF 22 No. 24.) Plaintiff Tyler Armes claims he co-authored both the composition and sound 23 recording of Post’s popular song Circles (“Composition” and “Recording,” 24 respectively) and deserves credit therefor and a share of the profits from Circle’s 25 success. (Id.) Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the FAC (“Motion”) by 26 Defendants Post, Adam King Feeney, professionally known as Frank Dukes 27 (“Dukes”), and Republic Records, erroneously sued as Universal Music Group, Inc. 28 (collectively, “Defendants”). (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 28.) The matter is 1 fully briefed. (See Mot.; Opp’n to Mot. (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 29; Reply ISO Mot. 2 (“Reply”), ECF No. 31.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and 3 DENIES in part the Motion.1 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 A. Relevant Facts 6 Armes, also a professional musician, is the bandleader, writer, and producer for 7 the bands “Down With Webster” and “Honors.” (FAC ¶ 2.) Armes alleges that Post’s 8 manager, Dre London, has encouraged Armes to collaborate with Post numerous 9 times.
  • Indiana Commercial Courts Handbook

    Indiana Commercial Courts Handbook

    INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURTS HANDBOOK Modified July 20, 2020 Table of Contents BACKGROUND OF THE INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURTS .....................4 1. HANDBOOK DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................ 5 2. HISTORY OF THE INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURT ................................................................................. 6 3. ORDER ESTABLISHING THE INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURT PILOT PROJECT ............................................. 10 4. ORDER ESTABLISHING THE INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURT .................................................................. 12 5. COMMERCIAL COURT RULES ........................................................................................................ 14 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 30 § 1.1 JUDGE’S ROLE ....................................................................................................................... 31 § 1.2 COUNSEL’S ROLE ................................................................................................................... 34 § 1.3 APPOINTING A COMMERCIAL COURT MASTER ............................................................................. 36 § 1.4 USING COURT-APPOINTED EXPERTS .......................................................................................... 37 § 1.5 RELATED LITIGATION ............................................................................................................... 38 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES................................................
  • RULE 26(F) REPORT Case No.: Date of Initial Conference: Plaintiff(S

    RULE 26(F) REPORT Case No.: Date of Initial Conference: Plaintiff(S

    RULE 26(f) REPORT Case No.: Date of Initial Conference: Plaintiff(s): Defendants(s): Phase 1 Discovery Phase 1 discovery entails reciprocal and agreed upon document production and other discovery necessary for a reasoned consideration of settlement. 1. Date for completion of automatic disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if not yet made: ________________. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C) (“Unless otherwise agreed upon, the date for completion will be 14 days following the Rule 26(f) conference.”). (Alternatively, of because of the nature of the case, initial disclosures are not required check here: ____ ). 2. Date for exchange of discovery necessary for reasoned consideration of settlement: __________. (This includes, where appropriate, executions of HIPAA records authorizations. Presumptively 60 days after initial conference).1 3. Settlement Conference and Mediation a. Option 1: Date for initial settlement conference: ____________. (The parties should propose a date approximately 10-15 days after the completion of document exchange. Should the settlement conference be adjourned for any reason, the parties must still proceed forward Phase 2 discovery, unless the parties make a motion and the Court grant the extension of the existing deadlines.) b. Option 2: The parties wish to be referred to the EDNY Mediation Program for mediation to be completed in the next 60 days: _________. 1 Should the parties not agree or absent a court order to the contrary, following the initial conference, the presumptive dates shall constitute the Rule 16 scheduling order in this case. Phase 2 Discovery Phase 2 discovery is post-settlement conference discovery that takes the parties to dispositive motion practice.
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview

    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview

    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
  • United States District Court

    United States District Court

    Case 1:05-cv-00195-AWI-SMS Document 63 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ERNEST MERRILL, et al., ) 1:05-cv-00195-AWI-SMS ) 10 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION ) TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS AS MOOT 11 v. ) (DOC. 18) ) 12 COUNTY OF MADERA, et al., ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION ) TO JOIN PARTIES, PERMIT A 13 Defendants. ) SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING ALLEGING A ______________________________) COUNTERCLAIM, IMPLEAD THIRD 14 COUNTY OF MADERA, ) PARTIES, AND FOR MANDATORY ) JOINDER (DOCS. 18, 34) 15 Counter-Claimant, ) ) ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE 16 v. ) PARTIES’ REQUESTS THAT THE COURT ) TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS 17 ERNEST MERRILL, et al., ) FILED IN REMANDED ACTION NO. ) 1:05-CV-00559-AWI-SMS 18 Counter-Defendants.) ) 19 ) 20 I. Background 21 On September 9, 2005, Plaintiffs Ernest and Lila Merrill 22 filed their first amended complaint, in which they sued the 23 County of Madera, two employees thereof (Basch, a code 24 enforcement officer, and Meyers, who issues permits), and Gary 25 Gilbert, a member of the County Board of Supervisors, alleging 26 that the County and its agents gave inconsistent advice 27 regarding, and required when the law really did not require, 28 1 Case 1:05-cv-00195-AWI-SMS Document 63 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 17 1 permits to grade a road on their property which is the only 2 practical access to their property; denied a road permit in June 3 2002 and thereafter; wrongly cited Plaintiff for grading a road 4 without a permit; instigated
  • Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E

    Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E

    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 38 | Issue 3 Article 4 1972 Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E. Kennedy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation John E. Kennedy, Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation, 38 J. Air L. & Com. 325 (1972) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol38/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS AND IMPLEADER IN FEDERAL AVIATION LITIGATION JOHN E. KENNEDY* I. THE GENERAL PROBLEM: MULTIPLE POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS W HEN airplanes crash, difficult procedural problems often arise from the numbers of potential parties and the com- plexity of the applicable substantive law. Since under that law, re- covery can be granted to large numbers of plaintiffs, and liability can be distributed to a variety of defendants, the procedural rights to counterclaim, cross-claim and implead third-parties have become important aspects of federal aviation litigation. When death results the most obvious parties plaintiff are those injured by the death of the decedent, i.e., the spouses, children, heirs and creditors. Whether they must sue through an estate, or special administrator or directly by themselves will ordinarily be determined by the particular state wrongful death statute under which the action is brought, and the capacity law of the forum.' In addition, the status of the decedent will also have bearing on the parties and the form of action.
  • Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim, and Setoff to a Civil Complaint a Guide to Resources in the Law Library

    Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim, and Setoff to a Civil Complaint a Guide to Resources in the Law Library

    Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2011-2019, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2019 Edition Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim, and Setoff to a Civil Complaint A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 Section 1: Admissions and Denials ............................................................................... 4 Figure 1: Admissions and Denials (Form) ................................................................. 12 Section 2: Special Defenses ....................................................................................... 13 Table 1: List of Special Defense Forms in Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice ............. 26 Table 2: List of Special Defense Forms in Library of Connecticut Collection Law Forms ... 28 Table 3: Pleading Statute of Limitations Defense - Selected Recent Case Law ............... 29 Table 4: Pleading Statute of Limitations Defense - Selected Treatises .......................... 32 Figure 2: Discharge in Bankruptcy (Form) ................................................................ 33 Figure 3: Reply to Special Defenses – General Denial (Form) ..................................... 34 Figure 4: Reply to and Avoidance of Special Defenses (Form) ..................................... 35 Section 3: Counterclaims and Setoffs.......................................................................... 37 Figure 5: Answer
  • Circuit Civil Summary Reporting System Manual

    Circuit Civil Summary Reporting System Manual

    CIRCUIT CIVIL PROCEEDINGS This section provides guidance on procedures to be used when completing the Circuit Civil portion of the monthly SRS forms. For ease of following the SRS forms, this section is divided into the major sections indicated on the form. Each or indicates guidelines and directions that should be followed when completing specific sections of the SRS form. Note: The section entitled Case Type Determinations (pages 4-13 through 4-17) provides case type and category definitions. NUMBER OF FILING EVENTS Number of Filings Please refer to section “A” of the SRS form which reports information associated with the number of cases filed during the specified reporting period. Report these cases filed as of the clerk’s document stamp date. Report in the appropriate case type, the number of complaints or petitions filed during the reporting period. Report cases transferred to the reporting court from another court prior to disposition. Report each parcel as a separate filing for eminent domain cases. Report civil cases which arise out of or occur in conjunction with criminal cases. Report civil cases which arise out of or occur in conjunction with probate cases or other civil suits. If several counts with separate case types are included on a petition or complaint, report the case under the case type that involves the greatest monetary issue. Report each filing in situations where separate petitions/complaints are filed under the same case number. For example, if a petition for a breach of contract is combined under the same case number with a petition for injunctive relief, report each filing under the appropriate case type.
  • Texas Civil Procedure

    Texas Civil Procedure

    SMU Law Review Volume 29 Issue 1 Annual Survey of Texas Law Article 13 1975 Texas Civil Procedure Ernest E. Figari Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Ernest E. Figari, Texas Civil Procedure, 29 SW L.J. 265 (1975) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol29/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. TEXAS CIVIL PROCEDURE by Ernest E. Figari, Jr.* THE major developments in the field of civil procedure during the survey period are found in judicial decisions. This Survey will examine these developments and consider their impact on existing Texas procedure. I. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON The reach of the Texas long-arm statute, article 2031b,1 continues to be the subject of judicial measurement. Product Promotions, Inc. v. Cousteau,2 a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is both a procedural and substantive yardstick. Noting the conflict between the state and federal rule on the placement of the burden of proof in a ju- risdictional contest,8 the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that "the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists, and the burden may not be shifted to the party challeng- ing the jurisdiction."' 4 In detailing the requirements of the burden, the Fifth Circuit observed that a plaintiff need only make "a prima facie showing of the facts on which jurisdiction was predicated, not a prima facie demonstra- tion of the existence of a cause of action." 5 Cousteau is also instructive for its treatment of vicarious jurisdiction.