Civil Procedure
396 U.S. 531 (1970) (Supreme Court of the United States)
Study notes for Ross v. Bernhard: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Shareholders are entitled to a jury trial in derivative actions when the underlying claim is legal, despite the equitable nature of the derivative suit.
In Ross v. Bernhard, the Supreme Court evaluated whether parties in a shareholder derivative action are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The case is pivotal as it clarifies the interplay between legal and equitable claims in the context of derivative suits, emphasizing that while the derivative action itself is equitable, the underlying claims it represents may be legal, thus entitling plaintiffs to a jury trial. Professors often highlight the implications of this ruling for both procedural rights in derivative suits and broader questions of access to jury trials in civil litigation.
RAs for jury trial: Ross Allows for jury trials in derivative suits.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg | Granfinanciera held that a right to jury trial existed in cases of bankruptcy, emphasizing the different contexts in which actions arise. |
| Tull v. United States | Tull addressed the right to jury trials in environmental injunction cases, further delineating the line between legal and equitable actions. |
| Donnelly v. Decker | Donnelly was concerned with equity but did not involve the derivative context, thus showing the unique procedural complexities involved here. |
Allowing jury trials in derivative actions aligns with the principles of access to justice and the right to a fair trial, ensuring that shareholders can bring claims effectively.
Opponents argue that this could undermine the efficiency and expedience of court proceedings by introducing jury trials into complex corporate disputes traditionally overseen by judges.
In exams, the case may be presented in the context of questions about the right to a jury trial, the nature of derivative actions, and the distinction between legal and equitable remedies.