Question 1. 10 Points
 

Bell believes Watson is infringing a patent owned by Bell by manufacturing an item covered by the patent without permission. Watson believes Bell's patent is invalid. Bell threatens to sue Watson and all persons purchasing the item from Watson for patent infringement. Without waiting for such suits to occur, Watson sues Bell for slander of title to the item (a false and malicious statement made in disparagement of a person's title to real or personal property), a claim arising under state law. Watson alleges that Bell's statements are based on a patent held by Bell, but that the patent is invalid. The question of patent validity is governed by federal law, and it is the only issue disputed in the case.

    (a) Does the case "arise under" the federal patent laws for purposes of the statutory federal question jurisdiction?

    (b) Would federal question jurisdiction exist if Watson instead sued Bell for a declaratory judgment that Bell's patent was invalid?
 

Question 2. 10 Points
 

Wilson, a citizen of the United States domiciled in New Jersey, abandons his home there and begins roaming from place to place around the world. Wilson never intends to make any place his home or to stay anywhere indefinitely. While he is on his journeys, Wilson is sued by Cleveland, a citizen of the United States domiciled in New Jersey, in a United States District Court in New Jersey.

    (a) Does the required diversity of citizenship exist under section 1332?

    (b) Would federal jurisdiction exist if Cleveland was a citizen of New York?
 
 

Question 3. 20 Points
 

Popeye, a seaman whose home was in New York, signed to serve on a ship in Texas. He was fired from service on the ship in Texas after a short time and sued Ollie Corporation, the ship owner, for lost wages in Minnesota. Ollie is incorporated and has its principal place of business in New York. Ollie Corporation had no contact with Minnesota other than the fact that one of its ships had picked up a cargo there before to the date on which Popeye was discharged in Texas. Should Minnesota be able to assert jurisdiction over the defendant in this case? Why or why not?
 

Question 4. 10 Points
 

Cash, a citizen of Nebraska who is an interstate trucker, was transporting a cargo from Nebraska to Arizona when he collided in Nevada with Buck, a citizen of California who was traveling briefly in Nevada. The crash took place near the California-Nevada border. Cash has never been in the state of California. But, there were important witnesses and evidence located in the California community in which the action is brought, and the defendant was on the way to California with a cargo when the accident occurred. Buck commenced an action in a California state court against Cash to recover for personal injuries that he received in the accident. The California state court in which the action was commenced is in a community adjacent to the California-Nevada border near the location of the accident. Cash moves to dismiss the action on the grounds that the assertion of jurisdiction over him by California violates the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Decide the motion.
 

Question 5. 10 Points
 

Martin, a citizen of California, sues Lewis, a citizen of California, in a United States District Court in California. Martin asserts against Lewis a claim arising under a federal statute and joins

with that claim a factually and legally unrelated claim based on state law. Lewis moves to dismiss the state claim on the ground that the district court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Should the district court dismiss the action? Why or why not?
 

Question 6. 10 Points
 

Bette and Rose collide in their automobiles, and Bette is injured seriously. Bette sues Rose, alleging that Rose was negligent, in that Rose was driving faster than reasonably warranted by the conditions. Rose's answer admits the fact of the collision, but denies that she was negligent. Bette moves for summary judgment, supporting her motion with affidavits showing that Rose was driving 45 miles per hour (ten miles per hour under the speed limit) on a highway that was wet from a recent rain. One of the affidavits supplied by Bette was an affidavit by Midler, an expert on the causes of highway accidents. Midler's affidavit opined that a speed of 45 miles per hour was ten miles per hour faster than justified by the conditions of the highway and was unsafe. Rose failed to oppose Bette's motion with affidavits or other materials. Should the motion be granted? Why or why not?
 

Question 7. 10 Points
 

Allen sues Berle in a federal court. Berle moves to dismiss Allen's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Berle's motion is granted, the action is dismissed, and judgment is entered against Allen after he fails to amend his complaint. Subsequently, Allen files another complaint in the same federal court asserting the same claim for relief, except that the new complaint has corrected certain omissions that made the first complaint. In defense, Berle pleads the judgment in the first action. Will Berle prevail? Why or why not?
 

Question 8. 10 Points
 

Assume that Ruth sues Aaron for an injunction to prevent Aaron from harassing Ruth by following Ruth and photographing her. The injunction is the only remedy requested by Ruth, but Ruth's complaint alleges facts which, if proved at trial, will entitle Ruth also to punitive damages because of Aaron's past actions in harassing Ruth. Assuming that Ruth had expressly asked for both an injunction and damages in her complaint, Aaron would have been entitled to a jury trial on the issue of harassment vel non. Assuming further that Aaron demands a jury trial in the injunction suit on the grounds that Rule 54(c) would allow Ruth to recover damages upon proof of the facts alleged in her complaint, should Aaron be entitled to a jury trial?
 

Question 9. 10 Points
 

After a trial to a jury in a federal district court, there is a verdict for the defendant and the entry of judgment on the verdict. Two days after the judgment has been entered, the plaintiff discovers new evidence that was in existence at time of the trial but of which the plaintiff was excusably unaware. This evidence, if introduced at the time of the trial, would almost certainly have changed the result of the case.

    (a) Which of the post-trial motions may the plaintiff use to bring the newly discovered evidence to the court?

    (b) If the new evidence is discovered six months after the judgment has been entered, is there any motion available to the plaintiff?
 

Question 10. 10 Points
 

    (a) Within what time period must an appeal from a final judgment of a federal district court to a federal court of appeals be initiated?

    (b) Is the time period for filing the notice affected by the pendency of a post-trial motion?
 

What standard of review should be used on appellate review of the following situations?
 

    (c) The defendant maintains that the jury was prejudiced against the defendant and improperly disregarded compelling evidence absolving the defendant of liability;

    (d) The plaintiff believes that the trial judge improperly refused to order a separate trial of the defendant's permissive counterclaim against the plaintiff;

    (e) The plaintiff asserts that the trial judge made erroneous findings of facts and conclusions of law concerning certain matters based entirely on documentary evidence introduced on the subject.
 

Question 11. 10 Points
 

After the wreck of a passenger train, Nancy, a passenger on the train, sues Amtrack in Federal Court for personal injuries, alleging that Amtrack's negligence caused the accident. After a trial, verdict and judgment are given for Amtrack on the grounds that it was not negligent. Subsequently, Sluggo, another passenger on the wrecked train, sues Amtrack for personal injuries alleging negligence. This time verdict and judgment are given for Sluggo after a finding that Amtrack was negligent. Subsequently, Spike, a third passenger on the train, sues Amtrack for personal injuries received in the accident. Spike contends that Amtrack's negligence is conclusively established by the judgment in Sluggo versus Amtrack.

    (a) Is Spike's contention sound? Why or why not?

    (b) If Sluggo versus Amtrack had been the first suit brought and concluded, would the result in Spike versus Amtrack be different?
 
 

Question 12. 10 Points
 

Johnson Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware, does all of its manufacturing in Texas, where its plant is located, it employs 2,000 persons, including 25 managers, and it has assets worth $25,000,000. Its executive offices are in Florida where all of its officers as well as its sales staff are employed, its books and records are located, its financial affairs are conducted, and its policy decisions are made.

    (a) Where would the corporation be located for federal diversity purposes?

    (b) Where would it be located if its manufacturing operations were spread evenly in Texas, Alabama, Ohio, and California, with an identical spread in employees and assets, while its executive offices remained in Florida?
 

Question 13. 10 Points
 

Nash, a citizen of Tennessee residing in the Eastern District of Tennessee, sues Metro, a citizen of New York residing in the Southern District of New York, for personal injuries received in an automobile accident occurring in Hawaii. Jurisdiction is based only on diversity of citizenship.

    (a) Where is venue proper?

    (b) Is there any possibility today that Nash may sue Metro in a United States District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee? Why or why not?
 

Question 14. 10 Points
 

V.A. Beach, a citizen of Virginia residing in the Eastern District of Virginia, sues Steel Co., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana, on a contract claim arising under state law. The events giving rise to the contract claim occurred entirely in Nebraska. Steel Co. does extensive business in the Southern District of Mississippi and is subject to personal jurisdiction in Mississippi as a result of this business, even though it conducts no activities in the Northern District of Mississippi.

    (a) If Beach sues Steel Co. in a United States District Court in the Northern District of Mississippi, is venue proper there? Why or why not?

    (b) If Beach brings an action in a state court within the Northern District of Mississippi and Steel Co. removes the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District, is venue proper in the Northern District?