Emanuel Law Outlines for Civil Procedure, Twenty-seventh Edition

Any law school graduate will tell you that when picking your outline tool, you need to pick the best because your outlines are the most important study tool you will use throughout your law school career. Developed by legendary study aid author Steve Emanuel, Emanuel Law Outlines® (ELOs) are the #1 outline choice among law students.  An ELO ensures that you understand the concepts as you learn them in class and helps you study for exams throughout the semester. Here's why you need an ELO from your first day of class right through your final exam:  ABOUT THE BOOK—TOOLS TO SUCCEED  The Capsule Summary provides a quick reference summary of the key concepts covered in the full Outline.  The detailed course Outline with black letter principles supplements your casebook reading throughout the semester and gives structure to your own outline.  The Quiz Yourself feature includes a series of short-answer questions and sample answers to help you test your knowledge of the chapter’s content.  Exam Tips alert you to issues and commonly used fact patterns found on exams.  A Casebook Correlation Chart that correlates each section in the Outline with the pages covering that topic in the major casebooks.  In this new edition of Emanuel Law Outlines® for Civil Procedure, Twenty-Seventh Edition, professors and students will benefit from new and expanded coverage (all cases mentioned are from the Supreme Court), including:  Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (U.S. 2021), in which the Supreme Court discussed the requirement in specific jurisdiction cases that the case have “arisen from or related to” the forum state and held that the fact the accident in question occurred in the forum state meets this requirement.  Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Ry (U.S. 2023), where the court held that if a state requires registration to do business in the state, and also has a statute saying that such registration constitutes consent by the registrant to be sued “in any cause of action,” this suffices to give a court general jurisdiction (not just specific jurisdiction) over the registrant and doesn’t deprive her of due process.  Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org. (U.S. 2025), holding that it doesn’t violate the due process rights of a foreign terrorist defendant (specifically the PLO) for Congress to say that when any U.S. citizen is injured abroad by the PLO’s act of terrorism, any federal court in the U.S. has specific jurisdiction to hear the suit.  Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger (U.S. 2025), holding that if P’s state-court action based on a federal question is removed by D, and there’s no diversity, P can defeat the removal (and get back to state court) by dropping the federal question claim in the removed action, thereby destroying subject matter jurisdiction and causing the suit to be remanded to state court.  An expanded discussion of how and when the federal court hearing a class action should approve a proposed settlement, including one proposed before the class action has even been certified.  A discussion of the discoverability of a request for the adversary’s social media files. The discussion includes a lower-court accident case holding that the defendant’s request for the full contents of the plaintiff’s social media accounts from before the accident to the present was unduly broad and should have been limited to items bearing directly on the plaintiff’s emotional distress after the accident.