RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL TEMPLATE ANSWER

KEY:
SEVENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL

STEP ONE: START WITH THE 7TH AMENDMENT, then move to the FRCP 38/39

Law: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law." - Seventh Amendment
1. Right to Trial by Jury: Describes the circumstances under which a litigant
has a right to a jury trial.
2. What controls the court may impose upon a jury in a case in which the
right is guaranteed. Must have already determined the right exists.

Step Two: Look at FRCP rule 38- The Right to a Jury Trial: The FRCP preserve a right to jury
trial but they do not create a right to a trial by jury where that right does not exist under the
Constitution or Statutes of the United States.- just gives a party the right to demand a jury trial as
preserved under the Constitution.

Step Three: EXAMINE THE TWO PRONG TEST: as established by Curtis, Tull and
Terry:

1.Hisotorical analogy- SNAPSHOT OF 1791 WHEN THE Const. was ratified and prior to
merger of the two courts

2. Relief sought- note that this is the one that’s dispositive

STEP FOUR: APPLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE: FACTUAL ANALYSIS

SIDE NOTES AND RELEVANT CASES:

a. Beacon Theaters v. Westover (1959): P sought declaratory judgment +

injunction, then D filed counterclaim seeking damages. D’s legal claims must
be tried before a jury first, before P’s equitable claims are tried before a judge.

b. The right to a jury trial depends not so much on the form of the action as
on the kind of relief sought

2. Dairy Queen v. Wood (1962): P sought injunctions and “an accounting” to

determine amount owed by D, & then judgment owed in that amount. Accounting
is considered legal relief, just like damages, so P was entitled to trial by jury
 a. Any issues that apply to both legal & equitable claims (“joint” issues)
must be tried to a jury if either party demands a jury trial

3. Ross v. Bernhard (1970): P, a shareholder, suing on behalf of a company.

Traditionally, shareholders could only sue in equity court, while corps could sue
in law court. Now that the courts are merged, there is no reason to deny legal
remedies to a corp. just b/c its spokesmen are shareholders rather than directors

4. Legal nature of an issue should be determined by:

a. Pre-merger custom w/ reference to such questions

b. The remedy sought

c. Practical abilities & limitations of juries (this efficiency argument not used
by courts)

ii. 7th amendment applies to actions enforcing statutory rights & requires a jury trial on
demand if the statute creates legal rights & remedies enforceable in an action for
damages in the ordinary courts of law

1. Curtis v. Loether (1974): 7th amendment can be construed to cover all

suits dealing w/ legal rights; thus applies to actions enforcing statutory rights &
requires a jury trial upon demand

2. Tull v. U.S. (1987): action seeking penalty is an action analogous to the

common law action in debt, giving rise to the right to a jury trial (although court
used a historical analogy, the case was ultimately about money, so history doesn’t
really matter)

iii. Two-part test (determining whether parties are entitled to jury trial or not):

1. Compare historical statutory actions in courts of law & equity

2. Examine remedy sought to determine whether it was legal or equitable in

nature

a. Teamsters v. Terry (1990): P sues union for breach of fair representation.

Court could not come up w/ a historical analogy, so just moved on to the 2nd
part of test

i. P was requesting traditional legal remedy, so entitled to jury trial

b. Right to jury trial applicable in cases of 1) declaratory actions presenting

traditional common law issues, 2) actions for the recovery & possession of
land, 3) proceedings in rem for the confiscation of goods on land, 4)
stockholders’ derivative actions for damages, 5) civil rights actions to recover
damages