Gorilla glue, when does a court decide to permit a trial If a plaintiff brings a civil suit against another party (aka say the Gorilla glue hair suit), what role does the court play in whether to permit a trial, how has that role changed over the decades, and are there large inconsistencies between federal judicial districts? Federal, as I believe this type of suit would be brought there. I understand and know that a suit can be thrown out, but how far can a court judge a case before trial? And do lawyers pick certain courts where they believe their odds are better?
If a plaintiff brings a civil suit against another party (aka say the Gorilla glue hair suit), what role does the court play in whether to permit a trial, how has that role changed over the decades, and are there large inconsistencies between federal judicial districts? Federal, as I believe this type of suit would be brought there. I understand and know that a suit can be thrown out, but how far can a court judge a case before trial? And do lawyers pick certain courts where they believe their odds are better? In the Gorilla Glue case that possible plaintiff resides and the injury occurred in Louisiana. The Gorilla Glue Company is based in Ohio. There are two basic plausible claims: a product liability claim against the manufacturer, and a breach of warranty claim against whomever sold the good to the customer. If sued, the immediate retail seller could bring in the person who sold it to them (perhaps a wholesaler) who could in turn bring in the person who sold it to them (perhaps a manufacturer), in a chain of breach of warranty claims. Depending upon the facts, one or the other defendant may have deeper pockets, and the elements of the legal claim for breach of warranty and for products liability aren't precisely the same. Neither claim requires a showing of true negligence on the part of a defendant, just a showing that the product was defective or that there was a failure to warn. But that doesn't mean that establishing liability is easier in either case either. Also, while the plaintiff's claims wouldn't be negligence claims, the concept of &quot;comparative fault&quot; under Louisiana or Ohio law (a choice of law question for the trial court to decide as to particular issues) means that sufficient negligence of a plaintiff could overcome the suit as well. Usually though, negligence issues are reserved for a jury and not something for a judge to decide. This case there would be two possible state court forums: The state court of general jurisdiction where the injury occurred which is in Louisiana. The state court of general jurisdiction where the defendant is located, which is in Hamilton County, Ohio. Since the plaintiff and Gorilla Glue maker defendant are from different states, if they are the only defendants, the suit could also be brought in federal court in either location in the first place, or could be removed to federal court from whichever state court it is brought in (assuming that the Louisiana court has jurisdiction over the Gorilla Glue maker, which it probably would but isn't entirely certain). However, the store in Louisiana that sold the product could also be sued for breach of warranty, and if that was done in a Louisiana state court, the case could not be removed to federal court by the Ohio based defendant since there is not &quot;complete diversity of citizenship&quot; and the Plaintiff's case do not arise under federal law. Bringing the case in Louisiana would be more convenient for the plaintiff. But procedural and substantive law issues factor into choice of forum for the plaintiff as well. Louisiana under the the Louisiana Products Liability Act has a doctrine known as the reasonably anticipated use doctrine that is more restrictive than many other states in its product liability jurisprudence. So, the Plaintiff may prefer to sue in Ohio and to apply Ohio law where the substantive law may be more favorable, even if it means foregoing a chance to sue the retail store that sold the product. Even if an Ohio court applied Louisiana, rather than Ohio law, getting access to the internal records of the Gorilla Glue company to determine what the company actually anticipated in terms of user use of the product could be critical. As explained by @bdb484 there are two stages at which a case might be thrown out by a judge prior to trial (and more than 90% of cases settle prior to trial). One is a motion to dismiss, governed by Rule 12 in federal court, and the other is a motion for summary judgment, governed by Rule 56 in federal court. The standard for a motion for summary judgment is essentially the same in state and federal court. If a defendant can show by affidavit in a motion brought after some opportunity for pre-trial compulsory exchange of documents and depositions that the facts necessary for that defendant to win under the law are present, and the other side can't present sworn evidence or authenticated documents contradicting that argument, then the case against that defendant is dismissed. But the facts that are established must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party defending the motion for summary judgment. The earlier stage, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 in federal practice, shows more variation between state and federal practice. A motion to dismiss is a &quot;so what?&quot; motion. If everything said in the complaint is true, does the defendant still win (jurisdiction can also be disputed at this stage). But the standard in federal court under a fairly recently announced standard known as Twombly changing a long standing interpretation of Rule 12, is that a case can be dismissed if the complaint doesn't state a &quot;plausible claim for relief&quot; based upon the non-conclusory facts of the complaint asserted to be true and not merely speculated to be true based upon &quot;information and belief&quot;. As this law review article explains: Conley v. Gibson, decided in 1957, required only that the complaint allege facts that could conceivably support a claim for relief—a lenient notice-pleading standard that allowed marginal lawsuits to survive to later stages of litigation in the hope that later-discovered facts would salvage the claim (355 U.S. 41 (1957)). A half century later, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Court announced a more demanding approach—plausibility pleading—which requires the plaintiff to allege facts that give rise to a plausible entitlement to relief (550 U.S. 544 (2007); 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). Since a Rule 12 motion is decided before the parties engage in the mandatory exchange of documents and depositions of witnesses prior to trial called discovery, the plaintiff often lacks inside information that the other party has which is damaging to their case and which the plaintiff can't get without discovery or a mole in the other side's organization. This is a big deal in a product liability case where internal memos might show an awareness of a risk of a problem like the one that happened. For decades prior to the Twombly case, a motion to dismiss would be granted only if it was impossible that the someone could win the case if the allegations of the Complaint were true, even if some of those facts were based upon guesswork of things that might be true. Some states retain the older standard, or some other standard entirely, or have ways that a plaintiff can compel information from the other side prior to filing suit. Ohio's state courts use the old and more lenient motion to dismiss standard, which makes the Ohio state court potentially an attractive forum if it could be secured. But it would be harder to avoid diversity of citizenship in Ohio so it would probably be able to remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441, even though if it was an Ohio company sued in Ohio state court. This is because the Ohio court wouldn't have jurisdiction over a retail vender of the product. (Another way to avoid diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and federal court would be to limit the dollar amount of the claim to under $75,000.) Procedurally Louisiana with roots in French rather than English law as a foundation, but influenced by contract with other U.S. states for a couple of centuries, has the most divergent civil procedure rules in the U.S., so it is hard for me as a non-Louisiana lawyer, to evaluate the procedural issues in that forum.
A federal court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte (i.e. without a request to do so from a party) if it is beyond its subject matter jurisdiction (a category of defenses including lack of standing) or fails to state a claim for relief on its face. A Motion to Dismiss filed in the case provides a roadmap for the judge to dismiss the entire case. It argues in essence: A Texas federal court can't assert jurisdiction over Georgia defendants. A federal court can't entertain claims against state officials in their official capacities for the kind of relief requested. The plaintiffs lack standing to sue. Subject matter jurisdiction defenses (and lack of personal jurisdiction defenses) are also not barred from being raised later in a motion to vacate the judgment, by a default judgment. The Texas federal court can also sanction parties for filing frivolous claims by, for example, awarding all of the costs and attorney fees incurred by the defendants against the party bringing the suit in a motion requesting that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against the parties and/or their attorney. I would not be surprised if the Plaintiffs' attorney in this case, Paul M. Davis, was disbarred and bankrupted by it. Class action lawsuits can't proceed as such until certified by the court. Furthermore, a summons has to be personally hand delivered with a complaint to be served in a way that is sufficient to result in an entry of a default judgment, even if the complaint is otherwise valid. This is unlikely to have occurred in all 600+ cases. There are several instances in which a &quot;clerk's default&quot; has been entered, but that simply indicates that a return of service (even if facially defective) was filed by the Plaintiff and that the number of days set forth in the summons for a response has lapsed. In contrast, prior to entering a default judgment, which must be done by a judge, the judge must review the complaint to determine if the court has jurisdiction over the case and if a valid legal claim is stated in the complaint.
There is a saying that you can't sue city hall: that is applicable here. Governments enjoy sovereign immunity, and cannot be sued for their errors of judgment unless they specifically allow it. Safety regulations are an example of a situation where the government hold all of the power and shoulders none of the responsibility. If a government forbids sale or use of a substance on some grounds (could be safety, could be economic impact, could be something about preventing the moral decay of society), and the grounds later turns to be false, you cannot sue the government because of lost business opportunities. Generally speaking, that which is not prohibited is allowed, so there would have to be an affirmative duty for the government to prevent all forms of harm. If there were such a legal duty, there is a miniscule legal foundation for suing the government for shirking its duty. That is not a completely hypothetical possibility, in that the state of Washington imposes a constitutional duty on the legislature to provide public education, and the Supreme Court has done things to enforce this duty (the contempt of court fines are up in the realm of $80 million). Since there is no jurisdiction that imposes a duty on the government to absolutely prevent all harm, you won't be able to sue the government if they fail to outlaw a thing that is eventually proven to harm someone.
No There is some room for change of venue from, say, one county to another, or one municipality to another, within the same state. In certain circumstances this may even be constitutionally required. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (U.S. 1966) (&quot;where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the case until the threat abates, or transfer it to another county not so permeated with publicity&quot;). But, there's no mechanism to move a state criminal trial to another state. A cousin of the scenario you're talking about is where D has committed crimes in multiple states. In such a situation the prosecutors from different states (and also the federal system) may meet and co-ordinate their strategies, and part of that will be deciding who charges what and who goes first. An example of this is the DC sniper case, which I remember pretty vividly because I grew up in the area. The Maryland and Virginia prosecutors reached an agreement to try them in Virginia first, and second in Maryland.
This would be virtually impossible to do from scratch. If you had the guidance of someone who successfully pursued a similar legal action it might be possible. In theory you should be able to pursue grievances in court by becoming well versed in the applicable laws and rules, having impeccable attention to detail, exceptional deductive and writing skills, and getting lucky enough to run your filings through patient clerks who will tell you every time you're missing something or doing something wrong. New York Courts even offer this encouraging CourtHelp website for pro se guidance on common actions. But if you really want to attempt a pro se civil action, especially against a government entity, or other entity with essentially unlimited legal funds, you not only need all of the above but also some sort of assistance from somebody who knows the system. I would spend as much time looking for sympathetic advocacy groups and lawyers offering pro bono service as I would reading relevant law and procedure. (One more thing: The word "quick" is never used in conjunction with formal legal actions, except in jest ;)
The US Supreme Court only has jurisdiction in federal matters. So if someone is suing under federal law, or there is a constitutional question, the Supreme Court is the place to go for a definitive answer. However, states have their own laws. The Supreme Court cannot tell New York that it must apply the attractive nuisance doctrine, as it is neither a matter of federal law nor a constitutional matter. New York is free to make its own laws on the subject, and the New York courts are free to interpret those laws as they see fit. In fact, federal courts are required to defer to New York's interpretation if New York's laws apply to the case, even if the case is in federal court for some reason (like diversity of parties.) See the Erie doctrine (which, coincidentally, involves yet another case about railroad injuries.)
Maybe I'm reading Walsh wrong, but it seems to me to be saying that Stout might apply in some cases, but it doesn't in that specific case. I think you are indeed reading it wrong. In the Walsh case, the court says: We have not had occasion to decide the question up to this time, but now that it is presented, we not only reiterate the doubt which we expressed in the McAlpin case (supra), but we think that the question of the defendant's negligence was erroneously submitted to the jury in the Stout case, and that we ought not to follow it as a precedent. It's clearly repudiating Stout here, and not just as it applies to that case. It literally says they think it should not be followed as precedent.
There are a lot more differences than this, but if your teacher sums up what he/she means by that sentence. Here, specifically, in Civil Law, the decision of the courts must comply with the laws as enacted, which means there are specific statutes required to make something illegal. Common Law features Stare Decisis which basically means that if Case A is decided in one way, and Case B is a similar Case to Case B, Case B must yield the same decision for all cases in that jurisdiction and lower courts below that court. This means that while statutes (laws) can be made by a legislature, the courts can "make law" by deciding cases. For example, some States in the United States and England and Wales only recently (within the past 30 years) adopted an actual law that made murder illegal? Prior to that murder was illegal under Common Law Murder that had been based on precedence from bazillion cases before that said it's illegal. Nobody bothered to write it down in an actual law. There are several other big differences such as Inquisitorial vs. Adversarial nature of courts, how and when punishments are decided (The famous "Just following Orders" Defense was given in part because of this difference and a lack of understanding over it.), who is the trier of fact vs. who is the trier of law, but as far as what is "Law" this is a good single summation of the difference in a single sentence. But it really shouldn't be condensed to a single sentence.