Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Simler v. Conner

Supreme Court of the United States · 1963 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJury TrialDiversity JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentSeventh Amendmentfederal law governs jury trial rightdiversity

Facts

The controversy concerned the amount of fees a client owed his lawyer. The client admitted he owed a reasonable fee under a contingent fee retainer contract that provided reasonableness could be set in a court trial. The lawyer relied on a later contract specifying a 50% recovery fee under certain circumstances, and the client asserted that this later contract was the product of fraud and overreaching. The action was brought in declaratory judgment form, and the client requested a jury trial.

Issue

In a diversity action in federal court, does federal or state law determine whether a claim is legal or equitable for purposes of the right to a jury trial? If federal law governs, was this fee dispute a legal action requiring a jury trial?

Rule

The right to a jury trial in the federal courts is determined as a matter of federal law in diversity cases as well as in other actions. Although state law supplies the substantive dimensions of the claim, the characterization of a state-created claim as legal or equitable for purposes of the Seventh Amendment must be made by recourse to federal law. A declaratory judgment form does not alter the essentially legal nature of a traditionally legal controversy.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Rosa Mendez, a New Mexico resident, files a diversity action in federal court in Denver against Caleb Voss, a Colorado resident, seeking a declaration about whether she owes additional compensation under a consulting contract. Colorado decisions would classify the dispute as equitable and deny a jury, but Rosa timely demands one.

Which law governs whether Rosa has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in federal court?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that in federal court, including diversity cases, the right to a jury trial is determined by federal law. State law defines the substantive dimensions of the claim, but whether that state-created claim is characterized as legal or equitable for Seventh Amendment purposes is a federal question.