Connection lost
Server error
Jon Riley Hays v. Bryan Cave LLP Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A state law legal malpractice claim, arising from representation in a federal criminal case, does not “arise under” federal law for removal jurisdiction simply because it requires evaluation of federal law. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded.
Legal Significance: Reinforces the well-pleaded complaint rule: a state law claim is not removable merely because federal law issues are anticipated or federal defenses exist. Federal law must create the cause of action or completely preempt the state claim.
Jon Riley Hays v. Bryan Cave LLP Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Jon Riley Hays sued his former law firm, Bryan Cave LLP, and its lawyers in Illinois state court, alleging legal malpractice. This malpractice claim stemmed from their representation of Hays in a federal criminal case where he was convicted. Hays did not appeal his conviction, and his subsequent motion for postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied and affirmed on appeal. (p. b761-7) The defendants removed the state malpractice suit to federal district court. They argued that the case arose under federal law because, as the district court later agreed in denying remand, the resolution of a malpractice claim originating from the defense of a federal criminal case would “require a substantial evaluation of applicable federal law,” specifically the federal criminal statutes under which Hays had been convicted. (p. b761-7) The district court, having accepted jurisdiction, dismissed the case on the merits. Hays appealed, solely contending the district court never obtained jurisdiction because the suit was not removable. (p. b761-8)
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state law legal malpractice claim, predicated on alleged deficient representation in a prior federal criminal proceeding, “arise under” federal law for purposes of federal question removal jurisdiction merely because its resolution may involve an evaluation of federal law?
No. The state law legal malpractice claim does not arise under federal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ip
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state law legal malpractice claim, predicated on alleged deficient representation in a prior federal criminal proceeding, “arise under” federal law for purposes of federal question removal jurisdiction merely because its resolution may involve an evaluation of federal law?
Conclusion
This case significantly clarifies that state law claims, even those deeply intertwined Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur s
Legal Rule
A case arises under federal law for removal purposes only if federal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
Legal Analysis
The Seventh Circuit, per Judge Posner, determined the district court applied an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupid
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state-law legal malpractice claim arising from representation in a federal
