Also known as: points of law · question of law
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A discrete legal proposition at issue in a case.
Apex Electric and Metro Plumbing both sue Titan Builders after project delays. They join as plaintiffs because their claims raise the same point of law about whether Titan breached its scheduling duties. The court allows joinder under the rule requiring a common point of law.
Prime Logistics sues a supplier for breach. A third party moves to intervene claiming its own supply contract was affected by the same conduct. The court grants intervention because the intervenor shares the point of law about contract interpretation.
Pearl Porter sues in federal court under diversity jurisdiction after a car accident in State A. The court must decide whether a point of law on contributory negligence comes from state or federal sources.
Tompkins, a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured on a dark night by a passing freight train of the Erie Railroad Company while walking along its right of way at Hughestown in that State. He claimed that the accident occurred through negligence in the operation or maintenance of the train. He asserted that he was rightfully on the premises as a licensee because he was on a commonly used beaten footpath which ran for a short distance alongside the tracks. He further alleged that he was struck by something which looked like a door projecting from one of the moving cars. To enforce that claim he brought an action in the federal court for southern New York, which had jurisdiction because the company is a corporation of that State. The Erie insisted that its duty to Tompkins was no greater than that owed to a trespasser. It contended, among other things, that its duty to Tompkins, and hence its liability, should be determined in accordance with the Pennsylvania law; that under the law of Pennsylvania, as declared by its highest court, persons who use pathways along the railroad right of way are to be deemed trespassers; and that the railroad is not liable for injuries to undiscovered trespassers resulting from its negligence, unless it be wanton or wilful. Tompkins denied that any such rule had been established by the decisions of the Pennsylvania courts. He contended that, since there was no statute of the State on the subject, the railroad's duty and liability is to be determined in federal courts as a matter of general law. The trial judge refused to rule that the Pennsylvania law precluded recovery. The jury brought in a verdict of $30,000. The judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that it was unnecessary to consider whether the law of Pennsylvania was as contended, because the question was one not of local, but of general, law and that upon questions of general law the federal courts are free, in the absence of a local statute, to exercise their independent judgment as to what the law is. Because of the importance of the question whether the federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of the Pennsylvania common law, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View casePerry Pratt litigates a tort claim in federal court. The judge identifies a point of law about burden of proof and applies state law under the Erie framework to avoid forum shopping.
Harry Tompkins, a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured on a dark night by a passing freight train of the Erie Railroad Company while walking along its right of way at Hughestown in that State. He claimed that the accident occurred through negligence in the operation or maintenance of the train. He also claimed that he was rightfully on the premises as a licensee because he was on a commonly used beaten footpath which ran for a short distance alongside the tracks. To enforce that claim he brought an action in the federal court for southern New York, which had jurisdiction because the company is a corporation of that State. The Erie Railroad Company denied liability, and the case was tried by a jury. The railroad insisted that its duty to Tompkins was no greater than that owed to a trespasser. It contended that under the law of Pennsylvania, as declared by its highest court, persons who use pathways along the railroad right of way are to be deemed trespassers. The railroad further contended that it is not liable for injuries to undiscovered trespassers resulting from its negligence unless the conduct is wanton or wilful. Tompkins denied that any such rule had been established by the decisions of the Pennsylvania courts. He contended that since there was no statute of the State on the subject, the railroad's duty and liability is to be determined in federal courts as a matter of general law. The trial judge refused to rule that Pennsylvania law precluded recovery. The jury brought in a verdict of $30,000, and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Erie had contended that application of the Pennsylvania rule was required by section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789. Because of the importance of the question whether the federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of the Pennsylvania common law, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View casePreston Pratt sues TSC Industries for misleading proxy statements. The court treats materiality as a point of law when the omitted fact is so obvious that reasonable minds could not differ.
In February 1969 National Industries, Inc. acquired 34% of TSC Industries, Inc.'s voting securities from Charles E. Schmidt and his family. Schmidt, TSC's founder and principal shareholder, resigned from the board along with his son. Five National nominees then joined TSC's board. Stanley R. Yarmuth, National's president and chief executive officer, became chairman of the TSC board. Charles F. Simonelli, National's executive vice president, became chairman of the TSC executive committee. On October 16, 1969, the TSC board, with the National nominees abstaining, approved a proposal to liquidate and sell all of TSC's assets to National in exchange for National Series B preferred stock and warrants. On November 12, 1969, TSC and National issued a joint proxy statement to their shareholders recommending approval of the proposal. The proxy solicitation succeeded. TSC entered liquidation and dissolution, and the share exchange was completed. Northway, Inc., a TSC shareholder, filed suit on December 4, 1969, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TSC and National. The complaint alleged that the joint proxy statement violated section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 14a-3 and 14a-9. It claimed the statement failed to disclose that the Schmidt interests transfer had given National control of TSC. It also claimed the statement omitted material facts concerning the degree of National's control over TSC and the favorability of the transaction terms to TSC shareholders. The District Court denied Northway's motion for summary judgment on liability. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding whether National had acquired control through the Schmidt purchase. This precluded summary judgment on the Rule 14a-3 claim. But the court reversed on the Rule 14a-9 claims and ordered partial summary judgment for Northway. It held that certain omissions were material as a matter of law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the standard of materiality applied by the Court of Appeals.
View casePacific Bank seeks approval of a class settlement. The court resolves a point of law about whether absent class members received adequate notice before binding them to the judgment.
Phillips Petroleum Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma, produced or purchased natural gas from leased land in 11 states during the 1970s. It sold most of the gas in interstate commerce at prices regulated by the Federal Power Commission, later the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Beginning in the mid-1970s Phillips proposed price increases. It collected higher amounts subject to refund with interest if disapproved. Phillips suspended royalty payments to lessors until final Commission approval. It paid the suspended royalties of $3.7 million in 1976, $4.7 million in 1977, and $2.9 million in 1978 without interest after the increases were approved. In 1979 the Commission began investigating overcharges. In 1983 it issued an opinion ordering refunds. Royalty owners Irl Shutts, a Kansas resident, and Robert and Betty Anderson, Oklahoma residents owning leases in Oklahoma and Texas, filed suit in Kansas state court seeking interest on the suspended royalties. They sought to represent a class of 33,000 royalty owners later reduced to 28,100 members after 3,400 opted out and 1,500 could not be notified. Fewer than 1,000 class members resided in Kansas and only about one-quarter of one percent of the leases were located there. The Kansas trial court certified the class under a state statute modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on an opt-out basis. It sent first-class mail notice describing the action and the right to opt out. The court applied Kansas law to award interest at Commission rates followed by the Kansas post-judgment rate of 15 percent. After the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1984.
View caseA point of law concerns the legal standard or rule that applies to the facts, while factual questions concern what happened. In joinder under Rule 20, parties may join when their claims share at least one common point of law even if their specific damages differ.
Intervention is allowed when the proposed intervenor presents a claim or defense that shares a common point of law with the main action. The court evaluates whether that shared legal issue will arise in both proceedings.
Under Erie, federal courts apply state law to substantive points of law to prevent forum shopping and ensure equal protection of state-created rights. Procedural points of law may follow federal rules.
Materiality is a point of law when the omitted information is so obviously important that reasonable minds could not differ on its significance to investors.
A point of law arises when the court determines whether notice to absent class members satisfies constitutional requirements before a judgment can bind them.
…extended for a criminal trial is the severe injustice risked by confronting an untrained defendant with a range of technical points of law, evidence, and tactics familiar to the prosecutor but not to himself. This danger shrinks markedly in the police station where indeed the lawyer in fulfilling his professional…