DOCTRINE FLOWCHARTS — DECISION TREES FOR THE HARD ONES
The six doctrines students get lost in — mapped step by step. Follow the path: each question leads to the next step or a result. Green = in/valid, red = out/void, navy = classification.
Hearsay · Personal Jurisdiction · Erie · RAP · 4th Amendment · Parol Evidence
Hearsay
Is the statement hearsay, and if so, does it come in?
1. Is there a statement — an out-of-court assertion (oral, written, or assertive conduct)?
No (a question, machine output, non-assertive conduct) → Not hearsay
Yes ↓
2. Is it offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted?
No — non-truth purpose (effect on listener, notice, legally operative words, circumstantial state of mind, impeachment) → Not hearsay (non-hearsay purpose)
Yes ↓
3. Does the FRE define it as not hearsay? (prior inconsistent under oath, prior consistent to rebut, prior ID; or an opposing party’s statement — adoptive, authorized, agent/employee, co-conspirator)
Yes → Excluded from hearsay — admissible
No — it IS hearsay ↓
4. Does an exception apply? Availability immaterial (present sense, excited utterance, state of mind, medical, recorded recollection, business/public records) OR declarant unavailable (former testimony, dying declaration, against interest, forfeiture)
No → Inadmissible hearsay
Yes ↓
5. Criminal case — is the statement testimonial and offered against the accused (Confrontation Clause), with no chance to cross-examine?
Yes → Barred by the Confrontation Clause
No → Admissible
Personal Jurisdiction
Can the forum constitutionally exercise PJ over the defendant?
1. Traditional basis? Defendant domiciled/at home in the forum, personally served in-state (presence), or consent/waiver?
Yes → Jurisdiction proper
No ↓
2. Does the state long-arm statute reach the defendant?
No → No jurisdiction
Yes — now apply due process ↓
3. Purposeful availment — did the defendant deliberately direct activity at the forum (not random or fortuitous)?
No → No jurisdiction
Yes ↓
4. Does the claim arise out of or relate to those contacts?
Yes — specific jurisdiction ↓ go to step 5
No — general jurisdiction only if the defendant is “at home” (domicile / PPB / state of incorporation) → General jdx if at home; otherwise none
5. Fair play & substantial justice — is jurisdiction reasonable (burden, forum & plaintiff interests, efficiency)?
Yes → Jurisdiction proper
No → No jurisdiction
Erie Doctrine
In diversity, does the federal court apply state or federal law?
1. Is there a federal directive on point — a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or a federal statute?
Yes — is it valid? (FRCP: arguably procedural under the Rules Enabling Act, not abridging a substantive right; statute: within Congress’s power) ↓ if valid → apply it
Valid federal directive → Apply the federal directive
No federal directive — unguided Erie choice ↓
2. Is the state law effectively substantive — would applying federal law be outcome-determinative (judged at the outset, under the twin aims: discourage forum-shopping and avoid inequitable administration)? (e.g., statutes of limitation, choice-of-law, elements, burdens of proof)
Yes → Apply state law
No / unclear ↓
3. Is the matter bound up with state-created rights, or does a strong federal procedural interest dominate (Byrd balancing)?
Bound up with state right → Apply state law
Strong federal interest → Apply federal law
Rule Against Perpetuities
Is the future interest void under RAP?
1. Is the interest one RAP applies to — a contingent remainder, executory interest, vested remainder subject to open (class gift), or an option / right of first refusal / power of appointment?
No (present estates, reversions, possibilities of reverter, rights of entry, vested remainders not subject to open) → RAP does not apply — valid
Yes ↓
2. Identify the lives in being at creation. Must the interest vest or fail within 21 years after a relevant life in being?
Yes — certain to vest or fail in time → Valid
No — any possibility it vests too remotely (fertile octogenarian, unborn widow, slothful executor) ↓
3. Does the jurisdiction apply a reform? (wait-and-see / USRAP 90-year period; cy pres reformation; statutory presumptions)
Yes → Reform & wait — may be saved
No (common-law RAP) → Void from the outset
Fourth Amendment
Was the search/seizure reasonable, and is the evidence suppressed?
1. Government action AND a search (intrusion on a reasonable expectation of privacy, or physical trespass to obtain information) or a seizure?
No → No Fourth Amendment issue
Yes ↓
2. Standing — was the defendant’s own reasonable expectation of privacy invaded?
No → No standing to challenge
Yes ↓
3. Was there a valid warrant — neutral magistrate, probable cause, particularity?
Yes → Search reasonable (check execution & scope)
No ↓
4. Does a warrant exception apply? Search incident to lawful arrest, automobile, plain view, consent, Terry stop-and-frisk, exigent circumstances/hot pursuit, inventory, special needs
Yes → Search reasonable
No — unreasonable search ↓
5. Remedy: exclude the evidence and its fruits — unless an exception applies (independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, good-faith)
→ Evidence & fruits suppressed unless an exclusionary-rule exception applies
Parol Evidence Rule
Is the extrinsic evidence barred by the PER?
1. Is there a written contract the parties intended as a final expression (an integration)?
No → PER does not apply — extrinsic evidence admissible
Yes ↓
2. Is the evidence of a prior or contemporaneous agreement? (Subsequent modifications are never barred.)
No — subsequent → Admissible
Yes ↓
3. Is the writing a total integration (complete & exclusive) or partial?
Total — bars contradiction AND supplementation ↓ continue
Partial — bars contradiction, but consistent additional terms allowed ↓ continue
4. Offered for a permitted purpose — fraud, duress, mistake, illegality, a condition precedent to effectiveness, to interpret an ambiguity, or a separate collateral agreement with its own consideration?
Yes → Admissible — outside the PER
No, and it contradicts/supplements an integration → Barred by the parol evidence rule