Question 1

In Erie v.Tompkins,where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania,the Supreme Court held that federal common law,as first announced in Swift v.Tyson,was to be abandoned in favor of state common law.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. In Erie v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court held that federal common law should be abandoned in favor of state common law.

Question 2

A suit tried in federal court must use federal law to resolve the matter;a suit tried in state court must use state law to resolve the matter.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A suit tried in federal court must...

Question 3

A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states could be tried in federal court using federal law or in a California court using California law.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A suit involving a dispute for $1...

Question 4

Federal courts have jurisdiction over matters such as divorce if the parties to the case now live in separate states.

Accepted Answer

Divorce and most family law matters are under the jurisdiction of state courts, not federal courts, regardless of the parties living in different states.

Question 5

Concurrent jurisdiction means both a state court and a federal court may have the power to hear a case.

Accepted Answer

Concurrent jurisdiction exists when both a state court and a federal court have the authority to hear a case.

Question 6

The case Erie v.Tompkins,involving a man hit by a train in Pennsylvania,holds that federal courts must apply either state common law or state statutory law in resolving disputes between citizens of different states.

Accepted Answer

This is an accurate statement about the holding of Erie v. Tompkins. The case established the "Erie doctrine," which requires federal courts to apply state law in cases involving diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Question 7

A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California,for business to be done in California,under California law,with parties from two different states could only be tried in California courts.

Accepted Answer

The suit could potentially be tried in federal court due to diversity jurisdiction, as the parties are from different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000.

Question 8

Because more than one court cannot have jurisdiction over the same case,federal courts have removal jurisdiction to insure that cases are moved to the proper state court.

Accepted Answer

Federal courts have removal jurisdiction to allow defendants to move cases from state courts to federal courts, not to ensure cases are moved to the proper state court. This is typically done when a case involves federal law or when there is diversity jurisdiction, meaning the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold.

Question 9

If the parties to a case are from different states,there is more than $75,000 in dispute,and federal law is involved,the case may be heard in either federal or state court.

Accepted Answer

This is the requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows federal courts to hear cases where the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. If federal law is also involved, the case may be heard in federal court.

Question 10

A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states would be tried in a California court using California law.

Accepted Answer

Since the contract was signed in California under California law, any disputes would likely be tried in a California court using California law. The fact that the parties are from different states does not necessarily change this.

Question 11

A conflict-of-law arises when incidents occur that have taken place in more than one state or entirely in another state from the one in which the lawsuit was filed.

Accepted Answer

This is the definition of conflict-of-law, where the incidents have taken place in multiple states, or in a state other than the one where the lawsuit was filed, leading to a conflict between the laws of different states.

Question 12

A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states could be tried in federal court using federal law or in a California court using California law.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A suit involving a dispute for $45,000...

Question 13

A suit involving a dispute for $1 million over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states could be tried in federal or California courts using the same law.

Accepted Answer

This is because the dispute involves a contract signed in California under California law, which gives the California state court jurisdiction. Additionally, because the dispute involves parties from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, it could also be tried in federal court under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, where California law would also apply.

Question 14

If the parties to a case are from different states,there is more than $75,000 in dispute,and state law is involved,the case may be heard in either federal or state court.

Accepted Answer

This is the criteria for federal diversity jurisdiction.

Question 15

A suit involving a dispute for $45,000 over a contract signed in California under California law with parties from two different states could be tried in federal court using California law or in a California court using California law.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A suit involving a dispute for $45,000...

Question 16

In Erie v.Tompkins,where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania,the Supreme Court held that the matter must be tried under federal law because the law of New York and Pennsylvania were in conflict.

Accepted Answer

In Erie v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court held that federal common law did not exist and that state law should be applied in diversity cases, unless there was a specific federal law on point. The issue of conflicting state laws was not central to the case.

Question 17

An action may be removed from state court to federal court by a defendant based on diversity of citizenship.

Accepted Answer

This is known as diversity jurisdiction, where the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and the amount in controversy is over $75,000.

Question 18

In Erie v.Tompkins,where Tompkins was hit by a New York train in Pennsylvania,the Supreme Court held that federal common law,as first announced in Swift v.Tyson,had to be applied to cases where there was diversity of citizenship,forcing the case into federal court.

Accepted Answer

In Erie v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court held that there was no federal common law that could be applied to diversity of citizenship cases and that state law must be applied instead. This overturned the previous precedent set in Swift v. Tyson.

Question 19

If both parties to a case live in the same state and there is less than $75,000 in dispute,then no matter what the legal issue,the case must be in state court.

Accepted Answer

Federal courts can have jurisdiction over certain types of cases even if the parties are from the same state and the amount in dispute is less than $75,000, such as cases involving federal questions (issues arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties).

Question 20

If a dispute may be resolved in federal courts only,the federal court is said to have exclusive jurisdiction.

Accepted Answer

When a dispute can only be resolved in federal courts, it is considered to have exclusive jurisdiction.

Quiz 2: The Court Systems