For Your Data Stanford V. Tennessee Valley Potency Illustration Brief Summary

Stanford v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1955)

o    Permissive joinder illustration regarding fumes released into the air past times multiple companies together with potentially causing harm.

o    Why did they actually desire to bring together the defendants?

·         Prevent Empty chair defense: If they tin laissez passer on the sack alone sue i defendant, the accused is going to indicate the finger at the other accused who is non a player inwards the trial.

·         By the same token, the defendants would desire this illustration severed inwards gild to hold upward able to accept payoff of this defence

o    Court finds that at that spot is misjoinder b/c these events did non menstruation from the same transactions or occurrences.

·         The plants were separately owned together with operated, together with dissimilar distances from the P

·         They are non articulation tortfeasors acting inwards concert.

·         Rule xx joinder was impermissible  à No, commonality. Both doing their ain thing.

·         Under Rule 21, misjoinder is non grounds for dismissal; thus, the claims tin laissez passer on the sack hold upward severed.

·         However, nether Rule 42, the Court tin laissez passer on the sack consolidate actions if they take away “common questions of constabulary or fact”

·         Here, the estimate industrial plant life that Rule 42 was satisfied together with ordered a articulation trial although the claims were severed

·         Rationale: at that spot was a mixed inquiry of constabulary together with fact mutual to both Defs.

·         Also, it was conceivable that other issues, mutual to both parties, may arise later on the answers are filed, or later on a farther evolution of the case

·         Joint trial likewise had many advantages inwards that it saved trial time, together with allowed the purpose of the same witnesses together with bear witness to decide culpability

·         Stanford Discussion

o    Prof: Real argue why the Court allowed a articulation trial is because such an gild volition preserve to each accused the procedural advantages of a divide trial, including preemptory challenges of jurors

o    Note the inherent number amongst this illustration b/c at that spot wasn’t an actual consolidation

·         The Court used Rule 42 ONLY to gild a articulation trial. Thus, P has i trial but 2 divide Ds.

·         Normally nether Rule 42, a existent consolidation would hateful regain is likewise shared. Here, the regain of the parties volition hold upward divide together with each D would non hold upward john to the regain that the P’s counsel gleaned from the other D

Share this post