Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Civ Pro I practice problems and hypos?  (Read 5752 times)

The Decider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro I practice problems and hypos?
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2007, 01:37:39 AM »
That makes sense. Thanks.

intel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro I practice problems and hypos?
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2007, 01:48:41 AM »
thanks for the comments KC - looks like you really know this stuff. Where do you goto school?

KC#11

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro I practice problems and hypos?
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2007, 06:32:06 PM »
thanks for the comments KC - looks like you really know this stuff. Where do you goto school?

Any time. GW.
Potential is just a word for something you haven't done yet.

magichat85

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro I practice problems and hypos?
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2007, 10:45:19 PM »
i'm confused by your statement in number 4 that you think the party was "joined under rule 13".  i thought rule 13 was only a reference to bringing claims (counter and cross), not a reference to adding parties.  doesn't 13 only apply once a party has been added, and as such would not negate 1367(b)'s statement that since the party is joined under rule 20, and the plaintiff is bringing the claim against him, supplemental jurisdiction would not be allowed?

KC#11

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro I practice problems and hypos?
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2007, 07:47:07 PM »
i'm confused by your statement in number 4 that you think the party was "joined under rule 13".  i thought rule 13 was only a reference to bringing claims (counter and cross), not a reference to adding parties.  doesn't 13 only apply once a party has been added, and as such would not negate 1367(b)'s statement that since the party is joined under rule 20, and the plaintiff is bringing the claim against him, supplemental jurisdiction would not be allowed?

Arguably, it could go either way. Read the old and new version of the FRCP and see what you think.
Potential is just a word for something you haven't done yet.