The Erie Doctrine

1. The Erie Doctrine ensures that any federal court that is located in a specific state abides by the laws of that same state. The Erie Doctrine is important because it helps determine what state laws will be applied in a case. There are many circumstances that would have to be considered, such as where the issue happened and if it happened in another state. The court that the case is presented to would have to decide where to continue the case and what laws would need to be used to achieve an accurate decision and a decision that does not violate the Constitution.

2. In rem jurisdiction is a type of jurisdiction that is based on property and where it is located. Property could be land, some type of tangible item that someone owns, or even

A venue is where the case takes place. It could be the state the issue occurred in, where the plaintiff lives, or sometimes where the defendant lives. Venues are important because the venue chosen has to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. They are also important because they sort out the amount of cases that are going on in the system to make sure the justice system is not overloaded.

5. Long arm statutes allow courts to have jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant of the state the lawsuit is being presented in. Long arm statutes are important because if they are used successfully, the case can proceed. They allow the plaintiff and defendant to be in different states and settle the issue, which works well if the defendant cooperates.

6. Jurisdiction over the person is gained by the court when the defendant has been in the boundaries of the state. If they have, then the state has jurisdiction over that defendant. If not, the state does not have jurisdiction. This is important because it can make sure a state does not violate someone’s Constitutional rights by saying they have jurisdiction over them if they have never had any contact with that

The Gilmores were allowed to file the amended complaint because they had evidence of the defendant’s violation of California Civil Code and that the defendant also broke the contract by transferring the payments without notifying the plaintiff. The Gilmores were able to manipulate the process to their advantage because when they submitted their second complaint, they did not include the RESPA claim that the defendant violated federal statutes. Since they did that, the federal court could not claim jurisdiction over it. The defendant could not bring the case to federal court because the plaintiff’s current claim did not include anything related to a federal statute violation.

10. The defendant has the burden of proof in a removal proceeding if the suit was filed in state court first. In this case of Gilmore v. Bank of New York, the suit was originally filed in state court by the Gilmores and then brought to federal court by the Bank of New York. Because of that, the Bank of New York now has to prove that the claims raise federal questions. The defendant may want the case brought to federal court because it may have different policies than the state court that could ultimately lead to a different