When it’s exam time you need the right information in the right format to study efficiently and effectively. Emanuel® CrunchTime is the perfect tool for exam studying. With flowcharts and capsule summaries of major points of law and critical issues, as well as exam tips for identifying common traps and pitfalls, sample exam and essay questions with model answers – you will be prepared for your next big test. 

Emanuel CrunchTime® for Civil Procedure, Eighth Edition, focuses on those topics that are important in today’s courses on Constitutional Law. 

ABOUT THE BOOK—TOOLS TO SUCCEED 

• Flowcharts illustrate principles and concepts 
• A capsule summary explains the major topics and issues covered in the course 
• Exam Tips teach you how to avoid common traps and pitfalls 
• Short-answer questions(with answers) provide an opportunity to test your knowledge 
• Multiple-choices questions in the style of questions on the Multistate Bar Exam (with detailed answers) build your exam-taking skills and confidence 
• Essay questionswith model answers help you review and prepare for exams 

This edition has been updated to reflect changes in the law, in casebooks, and topics tested on exams. New to the Eighth Edition of CrunchTime® for Civil Procedure: 

• Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (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 that the accident in question occurred in the forum state meets this requirement. 
• Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Ry (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. (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, 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. In particular, we examine why, in an accident case, a defense request for the full contents of the plaintiff’s social media accounts from before the accident to the present might be unduly broad and ought to have been limited to items bearing directly on the plaintiff’s emotional distress after the accident.