Civil Procedure Final Exam Multiple
Choice
A New York plaintiff files suit in Pennsylvania state court against a defendant
incorporated in New York for a claim arising in Ohio having no connection with
Pennsylvania. Which form of jurisdiction is necessary to avoid dismissal for lack of
personal jurisdiction?
(a) Specific Jurisdiction
(b) General Jurisdiction
(b) Diversity Jurisdiction
(d) Federal Question - correct Answer-(b) General Jurisdiction
Because the claim has no connection to the forum, the only possible basis to sustain
personal jurisdiction is if defendant has sufficient contacts to justify general jurisdiction.
A federal law claim can be filed only in a federal court.
(a) True
(b) False - correct Answer-(b) False
In most cases over which the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction,
including in cases involving federal law claims, state courts also have subject matter
jurisdiction. The only exception is where Congress has expressly stated that the claim
must be heard only in federal court.
Which of the following statements most accurately describes the subject matter
jurisdiction of federal and state courts?
(a) Cases that can be heard in federal court cannot be heard in state court.
(b) All cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court.
(c) Most cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court.
(d) Most cases that can be heard in state court can also be heard in federal court.
(e) All cases that can be heard in state court can also be heard in federal court. - correct
Answer-(c) Most cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state
court.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a relatively small number of cases -
only those cases specified in Article III, Section 2. The vast majority of those cases can
also be heard in state court. That is, there is concurrent subject matter jurisdiction -
subject matter jurisdiction in both the federal and state courts - over the vast majority of
,federal cases. The reverse is not true. The vast majority of cases that are heard in state
court cannot be heard in federal court.
Article III, Section 2 grants subject matter jurisdiction to federal courts in "[c]ontroversies
between a state and citizens of another state." Assume that Congress has not passed a
law authorizing federal district courts to hear such cases. Yolanda, a citizen of
Oklahoma, sues the State of Texas in federal district court for breach of contract (a
state law claim). Which of the following statements is the most accurate?
(a) There is SMJ in the fed. district court b/c the claim is between a state (Texas) and a
citizen of another state (Yolanda, from Oklahoma).
(b) There is no SMJ in the fed. district court b/c Yolanda is alleging a state law claim.
(c) There is no SMJ in the fed. district court b/c there is no constitutional authority for the
federal district court to hear the case.
(d) There is no SMJ in the fed. district court b/c Congress has not authorized subject
matter jurisdiction in this type of case. - correct Answer-(d) There is no SMJ in the fed.
district court b/c Congress has not authorized subject matter jurisdiction in this type of
case.
he federal district courts have constitutional authority to hear a case of this sort because
the case involves a lawsuit (a "controversy") between a State (here, Texas) and a
citizen of another state (here, Yolanda, from Oklahoma). Thus, C is incorrect. But that
does not mean that the federal district courts can hear this case. Remember that there
must also be statutory authority for the federal district courts to exercise subject matter
jurisdiction over a case, and there is not any such authority here. For this reason, A is
incorrect and D is correct. Finally, B is incorrect because it incorrectly states that federal
courts are not permitted to hear state law claims. In fact, federal district courts are
permitted to hear state law claims as long as there is a basis for doing so under Article
III, Section 2 and Congress has authorized it.
Congress can authorize federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in any
category of case as long as the Constitution does not prohibit it.
(a) True
(b) False - correct Answer-(b) False
Congress can only authorize federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a
particular category of cases if that category is within one of the nine categories found in
Article III, Section 2. Congress cannot authorize the federal courts to hear cases that
are not within Article III.
Gertha files a complaint in federal district court against Cantine, Corp. Assume that
Gertha's complaint asserts a claim that falls within one of the nine types specified in
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Also assume that Congress has
,passed a law expressly authorizing the federal district courts to hear this type of case
but has not specified whether the state courts can hear the case as well. Which of the
following statements is most accurate?
(a) A state court would not have subject matter jurisdiction because Congress has not
authorized it.
(b) A state court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, even if
Congress were to expressly authorize it.
(c) A state court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. - correct Answer-
(c) A state court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
State courts generally have subject matter jurisdiction over just about any type of case,
unless Congress has expressly given the federal courts exclusive subject matter
jurisdiction. Because Congress has not done so here, a state court can hear this case.
Congress passes a law stating that "the federal district courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over any case arising under federal law, but only when there are multiple
plaintiffs." Luisa wants to file a claim against Franco, alleging that Franco violated a
federal statute. Luisa is the only plaintiff. Which of the following statements is most
accurate?
(a) Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in federal district court and state court.
(b) Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in federal court, but not state court.
(c) Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in state court, but not in federal court.
(d) Subject matter jurisdiction would not exist in either federal or state court. - correct
Answer-(c) Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in state court, but not in federal court.
The federal courts would not have subject matter jurisdiction over Luisa's claim because
Congress has not authorized it. Congress has specified that federal law claims must
have multiple plaintiffs, and there is only one here. That makes A and B incorrect.
Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in a state court, however, because state courts
can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims as long as Congress has not
given the federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. Congress has
not done so here, making C the best answer.
Assume that Congress passes a statute that says that "federal district courts have
subject matter jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs arising under federal law, but only
when the plaintiffs have alleged damages in excess of $100 million." This statute would
be:
, (a) unconstitutional, because Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution does
not give Congress the authority to restrict subject matter jurisdiction according to the
amount of damages alleged.
(b) unconstitutional, because this is not one of the nine types of cases specified in
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution over which the federal district
courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction.
(c) unconstitutional, if a court finds that the amount-in-controversy requirement is so
high that it would effectively undermine a plaintiff's access to federal district court.
(d) constitutional. - correct Answer-(d) constitutional.
Federal question jurisdiction is one of the nine categories in Article III, Section 2, so B is
incorrect. A is incorrect because Article III, Section 2 simply tells us how much subject
matter jurisdiction authority the federal courts can have, assuming Congress decides to
authorize it. Congress can decide not to authorize the federal district courts to hear all
nine categories of subject matter jurisdiction or can authorize the federal district courts
to hear certain categories of cases in ways that are more restrictive than what Article III
would otherwise permit. For this reason, C is also incorrect; Congress can make subject
matter jurisdiction more restrictive than what is permitted under Article III, such as by
using an amount in controversy requirement, and there is no reason to believe that
there is an upper limit to the amount that Congress can set.
Lila files a complaint in federal district court against Valliant, Corp. Assume that Lila's
complaint asserts a claim that falls within one of the nine types specified in Article III,
Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Also assume, however, that Congress has
not passed a law expressly authorizing the federal district courts to hear this type of
claim. Which of the following statements is most accurate?
(a) The federal district courts have SMJ over the claim because Congress has not
expressly prohibited subject matter jurisdiction over a claim like this one.
(b) Even if Congress expressly prohibits SMJ over a claim like this one, the federal
district courts have subject matter jurisdiction here because the Constitution expressly
authorizes it.
(c) The federal district courts do not have SMJ over the claim.
(d) None of the above statements are accurate. - correct Answer-(c) The federal district
courts do not have SMJ over the claim.
Subject matter jurisdiction exists in the federal district courts only if: (1) the Constitution
authorizes it and (2) Congress authorizes it. Here, Congress has not authorized the
particular type of subject matter jurisdiction in question, so C is the correct answer.
Choice
A New York plaintiff files suit in Pennsylvania state court against a defendant
incorporated in New York for a claim arising in Ohio having no connection with
Pennsylvania. Which form of jurisdiction is necessary to avoid dismissal for lack of
personal jurisdiction?
(a) Specific Jurisdiction
(b) General Jurisdiction
(b) Diversity Jurisdiction
(d) Federal Question - correct Answer-(b) General Jurisdiction
Because the claim has no connection to the forum, the only possible basis to sustain
personal jurisdiction is if defendant has sufficient contacts to justify general jurisdiction.
A federal law claim can be filed only in a federal court.
(a) True
(b) False - correct Answer-(b) False
In most cases over which the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction,
including in cases involving federal law claims, state courts also have subject matter
jurisdiction. The only exception is where Congress has expressly stated that the claim
must be heard only in federal court.
Which of the following statements most accurately describes the subject matter
jurisdiction of federal and state courts?
(a) Cases that can be heard in federal court cannot be heard in state court.
(b) All cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court.
(c) Most cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court.
(d) Most cases that can be heard in state court can also be heard in federal court.
(e) All cases that can be heard in state court can also be heard in federal court. - correct
Answer-(c) Most cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state
court.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a relatively small number of cases -
only those cases specified in Article III, Section 2. The vast majority of those cases can
also be heard in state court. That is, there is concurrent subject matter jurisdiction -
subject matter jurisdiction in both the federal and state courts - over the vast majority of
,federal cases. The reverse is not true. The vast majority of cases that are heard in state
court cannot be heard in federal court.
Article III, Section 2 grants subject matter jurisdiction to federal courts in "[c]ontroversies
between a state and citizens of another state." Assume that Congress has not passed a
law authorizing federal district courts to hear such cases. Yolanda, a citizen of
Oklahoma, sues the State of Texas in federal district court for breach of contract (a
state law claim). Which of the following statements is the most accurate?
(a) There is SMJ in the fed. district court b/c the claim is between a state (Texas) and a
citizen of another state (Yolanda, from Oklahoma).
(b) There is no SMJ in the fed. district court b/c Yolanda is alleging a state law claim.
(c) There is no SMJ in the fed. district court b/c there is no constitutional authority for the
federal district court to hear the case.
(d) There is no SMJ in the fed. district court b/c Congress has not authorized subject
matter jurisdiction in this type of case. - correct Answer-(d) There is no SMJ in the fed.
district court b/c Congress has not authorized subject matter jurisdiction in this type of
case.
he federal district courts have constitutional authority to hear a case of this sort because
the case involves a lawsuit (a "controversy") between a State (here, Texas) and a
citizen of another state (here, Yolanda, from Oklahoma). Thus, C is incorrect. But that
does not mean that the federal district courts can hear this case. Remember that there
must also be statutory authority for the federal district courts to exercise subject matter
jurisdiction over a case, and there is not any such authority here. For this reason, A is
incorrect and D is correct. Finally, B is incorrect because it incorrectly states that federal
courts are not permitted to hear state law claims. In fact, federal district courts are
permitted to hear state law claims as long as there is a basis for doing so under Article
III, Section 2 and Congress has authorized it.
Congress can authorize federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in any
category of case as long as the Constitution does not prohibit it.
(a) True
(b) False - correct Answer-(b) False
Congress can only authorize federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a
particular category of cases if that category is within one of the nine categories found in
Article III, Section 2. Congress cannot authorize the federal courts to hear cases that
are not within Article III.
Gertha files a complaint in federal district court against Cantine, Corp. Assume that
Gertha's complaint asserts a claim that falls within one of the nine types specified in
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Also assume that Congress has
,passed a law expressly authorizing the federal district courts to hear this type of case
but has not specified whether the state courts can hear the case as well. Which of the
following statements is most accurate?
(a) A state court would not have subject matter jurisdiction because Congress has not
authorized it.
(b) A state court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, even if
Congress were to expressly authorize it.
(c) A state court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. - correct Answer-
(c) A state court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
State courts generally have subject matter jurisdiction over just about any type of case,
unless Congress has expressly given the federal courts exclusive subject matter
jurisdiction. Because Congress has not done so here, a state court can hear this case.
Congress passes a law stating that "the federal district courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over any case arising under federal law, but only when there are multiple
plaintiffs." Luisa wants to file a claim against Franco, alleging that Franco violated a
federal statute. Luisa is the only plaintiff. Which of the following statements is most
accurate?
(a) Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in federal district court and state court.
(b) Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in federal court, but not state court.
(c) Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in state court, but not in federal court.
(d) Subject matter jurisdiction would not exist in either federal or state court. - correct
Answer-(c) Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in state court, but not in federal court.
The federal courts would not have subject matter jurisdiction over Luisa's claim because
Congress has not authorized it. Congress has specified that federal law claims must
have multiple plaintiffs, and there is only one here. That makes A and B incorrect.
Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in a state court, however, because state courts
can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims as long as Congress has not
given the federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. Congress has
not done so here, making C the best answer.
Assume that Congress passes a statute that says that "federal district courts have
subject matter jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs arising under federal law, but only
when the plaintiffs have alleged damages in excess of $100 million." This statute would
be:
, (a) unconstitutional, because Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution does
not give Congress the authority to restrict subject matter jurisdiction according to the
amount of damages alleged.
(b) unconstitutional, because this is not one of the nine types of cases specified in
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution over which the federal district
courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction.
(c) unconstitutional, if a court finds that the amount-in-controversy requirement is so
high that it would effectively undermine a plaintiff's access to federal district court.
(d) constitutional. - correct Answer-(d) constitutional.
Federal question jurisdiction is one of the nine categories in Article III, Section 2, so B is
incorrect. A is incorrect because Article III, Section 2 simply tells us how much subject
matter jurisdiction authority the federal courts can have, assuming Congress decides to
authorize it. Congress can decide not to authorize the federal district courts to hear all
nine categories of subject matter jurisdiction or can authorize the federal district courts
to hear certain categories of cases in ways that are more restrictive than what Article III
would otherwise permit. For this reason, C is also incorrect; Congress can make subject
matter jurisdiction more restrictive than what is permitted under Article III, such as by
using an amount in controversy requirement, and there is no reason to believe that
there is an upper limit to the amount that Congress can set.
Lila files a complaint in federal district court against Valliant, Corp. Assume that Lila's
complaint asserts a claim that falls within one of the nine types specified in Article III,
Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Also assume, however, that Congress has
not passed a law expressly authorizing the federal district courts to hear this type of
claim. Which of the following statements is most accurate?
(a) The federal district courts have SMJ over the claim because Congress has not
expressly prohibited subject matter jurisdiction over a claim like this one.
(b) Even if Congress expressly prohibits SMJ over a claim like this one, the federal
district courts have subject matter jurisdiction here because the Constitution expressly
authorizes it.
(c) The federal district courts do not have SMJ over the claim.
(d) None of the above statements are accurate. - correct Answer-(c) The federal district
courts do not have SMJ over the claim.
Subject matter jurisdiction exists in the federal district courts only if: (1) the Constitution
authorizes it and (2) Congress authorizes it. Here, Congress has not authorized the
particular type of subject matter jurisdiction in question, so C is the correct answer.
