Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305
1982 · supplemental packet
A statutory violation does not compel an injunction; equitable discretion survives unless Congress clearly withdraws it.
Every case the course assigns, in the order it assigns them
Civil Procedure and Conflict Resolution · Prof. Coyne & Prof. Dimitriadis · MSLAW · Fall 2026
Every assigned case, in syllabus order
Built directly from the syllabus and the casebook table of contents.
Casebook: Hazard, Fletcher, Bundy & Bradt, Pleading and Procedure (12th ed.). The syllabus skips Pennoyer and Harris v. Balk and begins at International Shoe, p. 58. Outline draft due 10.5.26; midterm 10.7.26.
Ordered by the class that reads them, not by age. Casebook pages are from Hazard, Fletcher, Bundy & Bradt, Pleading and Procedure (12th ed.); cases marked supplemental packet are not in the book. Where a class also has cases from this site’s own reference set, they sit underneath in a second tier.
Every case the syllabus names falls on or before the midterm. The classes after it read “the three cases that follow in sequence,” so the sections below 10.2.26 carry the reference set rather than a named list.
Anchors for reasoning, not self-applying commands. Older decisions must be read against current rule text — several contain deadlines and thresholds that no longer exist.
Show
47 assigned · 39 from the reference set · midterm 10.7.26
8.26.26
Remedies and damages · end of Chapter 1
Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 56 Cal.2d 498
1961 · supplemental packet
An appellate court may hold a damages award excessive only if it is so large as to indicate passion or prejudice.
B.M.W. of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559
1996 · supplemental packet
Punitive damages may not be grossly excessive — reprehensibility, disparity with the harm, and comparable civil penalties.
Also on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609
1980 · reference set
Massachusetts preliminary-injunction analysis weighs likelihood of success and irreparable harm comparatively; public-interest considerations depend on the case.
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7
2008 · reference set
Preliminary relief requires likely success, likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and public interest; possible harm alone was insufficient.
8.28.26
Due process and defenses · Rules 4 and 12
United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111
1979 · supplemental packet
An FTCA claim accrues on knowledge of injury and cause, not on knowledge that the injury was negligently inflicted.
Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1
1991 · supplemental packet
Prejudgment attachment without notice, hearing or exigency violates due process; Mathews modified to weigh the private plaintiff’s interest.
Commonwealth v. Olivo, 369 Mass. 62
1975 · supplemental packet
Notice reasonably calculated to give actual notice suffices even for a party who cannot read it, if it would prompt a reasonable person to inquire.
week of 8.31.26
Choosing the proper court · Chapter 2 opens
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797
1985 · casebook p. 227
Jurisdiction over absent class members needs only notice plus opt-out; but the forum must have significant contacts before its law may govern.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310
1945 · casebook p. 58
Minimum contacts such that suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286
1980 · casebook p. 70
The unilateral act of a consumer bringing a product into the forum is not purposeful availment.
9.9 & 9.11.26
Problems with jurisdiction
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462
1985 · casebook p. 82
Contacts come first; reasonableness can then defeat them in a compelling case, not the reverse.
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873
2011 · casebook p. 90
Stream of commerce — no majority on whether targeting the specific forum is required.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255
2017 · casebook p. 112
A non-resident plaintiff cannot borrow the defendant’s forum contacts with other plaintiffs.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915
2011 · casebook p. 130
General jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render the defendant essentially at home.
Also on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117
2014 · reference set
General corporate jurisdiction ordinarily lies where the corporation is at home; substantial sales alone do not establish it.
week of 9.14.26
Long-arm statutes, notice, consent and objection
Omni Capital International v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97
1987 · casebook p. 139
A federal court needs statutory authorisation; Rule 4(k)(1)(A) borrows the forum state’s long-arm.
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186
1977 · casebook p. 147
All assertions of state-court jurisdiction, in rem included, are measured against International Shoe.
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604
1990 · casebook p. 160
Tag jurisdiction survives — service on a defendant present in the forum suffices, with no majority on why.
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306
1950 · casebook p. 176
Notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties and afford an opportunity to object.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585
1991 · casebook p. 202
A form forum-selection clause may be enforced, subject to fairness limits.
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694
1982 · casebook p. 216
Personal jurisdiction is an individual right and can be lost — here as a Rule 37 discovery sanction.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351
2021 · supplemental packet
“Arise out of or relate to” is disjunctive; systematically serving the forum market for the product that injured a resident there suffices.
Also on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122
2023 · reference set
Rejects the due-process challenge to Pennsylvania’s registration-consent scheme; do not assume every registration law creates consent or resolves other constitutional objections.
SCVNGR, Inc. v. Punchh, Inc., 478 Mass. 324
2017 · reference set
Massachusetts long-arm statutory authority must be analyzed independently before constitutional limits; satisfying due process alone does not complete the state-law inquiry.
9.21.26
Subject matter jurisdiction
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149
1908 · casebook p. 237
The federal question must appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.
Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering, 545 U.S. 308
2005 · casebook p. 243
An embedded federal issue: necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and resolvable without disturbing the federal-state balance.
Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir.)
1974 · casebook p. 254
Domicile is presence plus intent to remain indefinitely, and persists until a new one is acquired.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77
2010 · casebook p. 258
A corporation’s principal place of business is its nerve centre.
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715
1966 · casebook p. 274
Claims forming one constitutional case derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.
Also on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251
2013 · reference set
An embedded federal issue must be necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial to the federal system, and resolvable without upsetting the federal-state balance.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555
1992 · reference set
Article III standing requires concrete particularized injury, causation, and redressability; evidence needed depends on the litigation stage.
Pramco, LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina, Inc., 435 F.3d 51 (1st Cir.)
2006 · reference set
An LLC takes its members’ citizenship; jurisdictional analysis must identify members rather than use corporate incorporation and headquarters rules.
9.30.26
Subject matter jurisdiction continued · venue
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365
1978 · casebook p. 279
A plaintiff may not use supplemental jurisdiction to evade complete diversity.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546
2005 · casebook p. 291
Relaxes the amount in controversy for additional plaintiffs; does not relax complete diversity.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386
1987 · casebook p. 302
A federal defense, including preemption, does not make a case removable.
Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516
1990 · casebook p. 322
A § 1404(a) transfer carries the transferor’s law, even when the plaintiff asked for the transfer.
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26
1998 · casebook p. 342
MDL is pretrial only; the transferee court may not keep the case for trial.
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235
1981 · casebook p. 350
An unfavourable change of law in the alternative forum does not by itself defeat forum non conveniens dismissal.
Also on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, 571 U.S. 49
2013 · reference set
A valid forum-selection clause changes transfer analysis under §1404(a); statutory venue and contractual forum selection remain distinct.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, 607 U.S. ___
2026 · reference set
An erroneous dismissal of a properly joined nondiverse party did not save the judgment when corrected on appeal; do not treat every post-removal dismissal as a valid cure.
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22
2025 · reference set
Deleting the federal claims by amendment eliminated supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims; distinguish judicial dismissal and an independent jurisdictional basis.
10.2.26
The Erie problem · pleading · responding to the complaint
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64
1938 · casebook p. 372
There is no federal general common law; a diversity court applies the substantive law of the forum state.
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99
1945 · casebook p. 384
Outcome determination — statutes of limitation are substantive.
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, 356 U.S. 525
1958 · casebook p. 392
Countervailing federal interests can outweigh outcome determination.
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460
1965 · casebook p. 397
Separates the two tracks; service of process is procedural and the valid Federal Rule applies.
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415
1996 · casebook p. 411
Accommodation — a state standard applied through the federal trial judge.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393
2010 · casebook p. 429
Rule 23 against a state class-action bar — no majority on the Rules Enabling Act test.
Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. Co., 342 U.S. 359
1952 · casebook p. 448
Reverse Erie — federal law governs in state courts where a federal right is at stake.
DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266 (2d Cir.)
1994 · casebook p. 455
Ascertaining state law — and what happens when a federal court guesses wrong.
Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation v. Lubell, 77 N.Y.2d 311
1991 · casebook p. 461
The state court answer that showed the federal prediction in DeWeerth was wrong.
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363
1943 · casebook p. 467
Federal common law survives Erie in enclaves of distinctly federal concern.
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.)
2004 · casebook p. 486
Substantive sufficiency of a complaint, and what a court may consider in testing it.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635
1980 · casebook p. 499
Allocating the burden of pleading between the elements of a claim and an affirmative defense.
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506
2002 · casebook p. 510
No heightened pleading outside Rule 9(b) and statute.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
2007 · casebook p. 517
Plausibility replaces Conley’s “no set of facts.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
2009 · casebook p. 529
The two-step: set aside conclusions, then test the remaining facts for plausibility.
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308
2007 · casebook p. 548
The PSLRA’s strong-inference standard for pleading scienter.
Also on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533
1991 · reference set
A represented party signing papers could face an objective reasonable-inquiry standard; the decision predates significant amendments to Rule 11’s sanction procedure.
Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623
2008 · reference set
Massachusetts adopted plausibility pleading drawing on Twombly; distinguish adequately alleged facts from unsupported entitlement to relief.
10.9.26
The three testing motions
after the midtermAlso on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178
1962 · reference set
Leave to amend should be freely given absent a justified reason such as prejudice, bad faith, delay, repeated failure, or futility.
10.14 & 10.16.26
Joinder, impleader, intervention and parties
after the midtermAlso on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591
1997 · reference set
Settlement does not dispense with certification protections, including adequacy and predominance; settlement can remove trial-manageability concerns.
Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538
2010 · reference set
Party-change relation back focuses on what the prospective defendant knew or should have known about the mistake; all Rule 15 conditions still matter.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523
1967 · reference set
Statutory interpleader accepts minimal claimant diversity; jurisdiction over a limited fund does not justify controlling all related tort litigation.
Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5
1990 · reference set
Joint tortfeasors are ordinarily permissive parties, not automatically required parties; examine the particular interests and relief under Rule 19.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338
2011 · reference set
Commonality requires a common contention capable of a common answer; individualized monetary relief cannot simply be placed in a Rule 23(b)(2) class.
10.19.26
Discovery, including e-discovery · summary judgment begins
after the midtermAlso on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495
1947 · reference set
Protects litigation preparation from routine compelled disclosure; current work-product doctrine is implemented through Rule 26 and its exceptions.
National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639
1976 · reference set
Affirms severe sanctions for flagrant discovery misconduct; it does not authorize dismissal for every discovery shortcoming.
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104
1964 · reference set
Rule 35 requires genuine in-controversy and good-cause showings; examination is not automatic merely because a person is a party.
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383
1981 · reference set
Corporate attorney-client privilege is not limited to a control group; protected communications must be distinguished from discoverable underlying facts.
10.28 & 10.30.26
Summary judgment finished
after the midtermAlso on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242
1986 · reference set
Summary judgment asks whether a reasonable jury could find for the opponent under the governing proof burden; judges do not weigh credibility.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317
1986 · reference set
A movant can identify the absence of evidence on an element its opponent must prove; the motion still requires a proper record-based showing.
Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706
1991 · reference set
Massachusetts permits a supported showing that an opponent has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element; a bare assertion of no evidence is insufficient.
11.4 & 11.6.26
Post-trial motions
after the midtermAlso on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418
1979 · reference set
Due process requires clear and convincing proof for indefinite civil commitment; that heightened burden is not a general civil-case standard.
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500
1959 · reference set
Equitable claims ordinarily cannot be tried first to extinguish jury determination of shared legal issues; classify the requested relief and overlapping issues.
Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729
2023 · reference set
A purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment need not be renewed under Rule 50; factual sufficiency issues are different.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358
1970 · reference set
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to facts constituting criminal guilt, including the juvenile adjudication at issue; ordinary civil liability uses other standards.
Kippenhan v. Chaulk Services, Inc., 428 Mass. 124
1998 · reference set
Spoliation analysis considers foreseeable litigation and the evidentiary loss; Massachusetts doctrine is not identical to federal Rule 37(e).
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133
2000 · reference set
JMOL review considers the record and favorable reasonable inferences without weighing evidence; disbelief of an explanation may support, but does not invariably compel, liability.
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49
2005 · reference set
Places the persuasion burden on the party seeking relief in the IDEA proceeding at issue; burdens must be checked against the governing claim and statute.
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394
2006 · reference set
Failure to renew under Rule 50(b) prevents the sufficiency review sought there; preserve the trial-stage challenge and appropriate post-trial motion.
11.9.26
Res judicata and collateral estoppel
after the midtermAlso on these pages, not on the syllabus’s named list:
Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 444 Mass. 837
2005 · reference set
Massachusetts distinguishes claim and issue preclusion; issue preclusion requires an actually litigated, essential determination and the required party relationship.
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322
1979 · reference set
Permits discretionary offensive nonmutual issue preclusion with fairness safeguards; a favorable prior finding is not automatically reusable.
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80
1988 · reference set
A default obtained without constitutionally adequate notice cannot be insulated by demanding proof of a meritorious defense in the circumstances presented.
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497
2001 · reference set
Federal common law governs a federal diversity judgment’s claim-preclusive effect, ordinarily borrowing rendering-state law; Rule 41’s label alone is not the entire answer.
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880
2008 · reference set
Rejects broad virtual-representation preclusion; nonparty binding effect requires a recognized exception and its safeguards.
skipped
What the syllabus tells you to leave out
“Use textbook and skip Pennoyer and Harris and start with International Shoe at page 58.” Kept here because Shaffer is written against them, and because knowing what was cut is part of knowing the shape of the course.
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714
1878 · casebook p. 41
Historical formulae — territorial power and state boundaries. Shaffer is written against it.
Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215
1905 · casebook p. 53
The expansion of in rem jurisdiction through attachable debts. Overtaken by Shaffer.