civil procedure

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from requiring an out of state corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction in order to do business in the state. Mallory, a Virginia resident, brought suit against Norfolk Southern Railway Company under Pennsylvania Law -- claiming carcinogen exposure in Ohio and Virginia. Norfolk Southern rebutted the suit with a constitutional argument, arguing that the Pennsylvania court lacked personal jurisdiction against the Virginia company. Although Pennsylvania law requires a registered foreign corporation to answer any suit brought against it within the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania court ruled that the claim was constitutionally precluded, disagreeing with precedent from supreme courts elsewhere. Held: The Due Process Clause allows states to require foreign corporations to consent to suit in exchange for the right to do business in the State. sThis case is controlled by well-established law (Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. (1917)) -- the Pennsylvania court incorrectly stated that Pennsylvania Fire had been implicitly overruled. Vacated and remanded. Opinion delivered by Justice Gorsuch. 

Read by: Jake Leahy

How would one sue the TVA? Where, and when, would there be proper venue? Join Josh and Gabby for lessons in civil procedure in their review of Loki, "Journey Into Mystery." 

No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

In this episode...

Judge Lisa Margaret Smith, Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York and Professor Michael Mushlin, Elisabeth Haub School of Law share their experience jointly teaching their 1L Civil Procedure class with a courtroom component. The program gives the students a flavor of the practical aspects of civil procedure and a context within which to grasp doctrinal concepts. Their approach supplements the traditional casebook materials and typical Socratic teaching method used in first-year law courses by challenging students to draft court documents, allowing them to visit a federal court and meet regularly with the judge. Their approach recognizes the disconnect between 1L doctrinal classroom teaching and the practice of law. This class provides students with context, which translates to a greater interest in and understanding of Civil Procedure Substantive law. The experience has been a huge hit among those who have had the good fortune of taking the class. You can read more about the class, including an analysis of the benefits and costs of the program in Judge Smith and Professor Mushlin's article,  The Professor and the Judge: Introducing First-Year Law Students to the Law in Context, 63 J. Legal. Educ. 460 (2014).

This episode is of value to law students, who will learn the importance of courtroom experience. Judge Smith also explains how law students can gain access to a courtroom even if students do not have the benefit of a formal program. The episode is equally important to law professors. Professor Mushlin's first-hand experience is enough to convince any law professor to incorporate some experiential work into every doctrinal class.

Some key takeaways are...

1. Students learn better when they understand the context of the material
2. Many schools overlook the fact that students do not have context as they have never been in a courtroom before, and, if they are first-generation law students, they do not have exposure to the legal profession.
3. Skills assignments and courtroom exposure during the 1L year increase student investment in the subject matter. 

-
As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know!
You can email leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet @lawtofact.
-
Find us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook!
Review us on iTunes, your opinion matters!
-
Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact?
Join our mailing list by visiting www.LawToFact.com. 

In this episode…

Today’s episode is a viewer request.  I was asked to create a podcast on summary judgment and went right to the expert, Ryan Williams, of Mitchell Hamline School of Law and a member of the Kaplan Bar Prep faculty.  In this episode, he clearly explains summary judgment in a way that will be sure to help you excel on exams.

Some key takeaways are: 

1.     Summary judgment is a tool for courts to dispose of a case without holding a trial.

2.     A party is granted summary judgment if in light of the facts presented, a reasonable juror could only find for the moving party. 

3.     Either party can ask for summary judgment

About our guest…

Professor Williams is a Yale University and Georgetown Law graduate, specializing in Civil Procedure, Torts and Bar preparation.  He currently teaches at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, and as a bar exam expert lecturer for Kaplan. He has also published numerous articles on national security, and in 2014 was named one of the top law Professors of color in America by Lawyers of Color Magazine.

Law to Fact is a podcast about law school for law school students.
-
As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know!
You can email leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet @lawtofact.
-
Find us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook!
Review us on iTunes, your opinion matters!
-
Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact?
Join our mailing list by visiting www.LawToFact.com.
-
This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on test day with confidence by offering $100 off live and on-demand Bar Review with offer code Leslie100.

Visit kaplanbarreview.com today to sign up.

In this episode, Professor Jason Parkin, Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University explains the benefits of participating in a law school live client clinic. 

Some key takeaways are: 

1. Clinics allow law students the opportunity to "be the lawyer" and represent clients in courtrooms and other legal settings.
2. Clinics give students an opportunity to see whether they like litigation.
3. In clinics the students is the lawyer, in externships the student works for the lawyer.
4. Most schools offer a multitude of clinics and are available to students after their first year of law school. 

About our guest…
Jason Parkin is a professor of law at the Elisabeth Haub School of lLw.  He is the founder and director of the Neighborhood Justice Clinic, which represents individuals and grassroots organizations in both litigation and non-litigation matters related to workers’ rights and other issues affecting low-income communities in Westchester County.  Prior to joining the Pace faculty, Professor Parkin was a Robert M. Cover Fellow and Clinical Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School,   He is a former senior staff attorney in the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Special Litigation Unit.  Following law school, Professor Parkin  clerked for Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Judge Julio M. Fuentes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[Insert guest bio here]

Want to learn more about Professor Parkin? Visit the links below: 

https://law.pace.edu/faculty/jason-parkin

As always, if you have and suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on FaceBook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes.

Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com. 

In this episode  Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law, Michelle Simon explains Personal Jurisdiction.  In addition to walking us through the different aspects of the issue, Dean Simon lays out a no-fail way to answer personal jurisdiction questions you may face on an exam.  Hint: Read the questions very very carefully!

In this episode, Prof. Randolph McLaughlin of the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University discusses In Personam Jurisdiction. Professor McLaughlin explores the history of the doctrine and clearly articulates the tests students should apply when faced with a personal jurisdiction question.

In this episode, we discuss the Erie Doctrine with Michael Mushlin, Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law. Professor Mushlin walks us through "the house of Erie" and explains the steps in analyzing an Erie Problem that students might see in an exam. It's a fun conversation that helps you understand and appreciate Erie in a way you probably hadn't before.

About our Guest:
Professor Michael B. Mushlin teaches Civil Procedure, Evidence, and Prisoners' Rights at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. He is the author of book chapters and articles on a variety of subjects involving evidence, federal jurisdiction, civil procedure, children's rights, and prisoners' rights that have appeared in journals such as the Yale Law and Policy Review, UCLA Law Review, Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, The Journal of Legal Education, and the Brooklyn Law Review. He also is the author of RIGHTS OF PRISONERS (4th ed West) a four volume comprehensive treatise on the law regarding prisoners' rights and NEW YORK EVIDENCE WITH OBJECTIONS (4th ed National Institute of Trial Advocacy 2013) (with Jo Ann Harris). You can read more about Professor Mushlin here. 

-
As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know!
You can email leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet @lawtofact.
-
Find us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook!
Review us on iTunes, your opinion matters!
-
Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact?
Join our mailing list by visiting www.LawToFact.com. 

No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks