.png)
Civ Pro is learned by running the funnel against facts, so this page is drills, not theory: two original practice questions in the course's two dominant archetypes, one with a full model answer, one with a self grading key, plus where to find more. The protocol for using them, timed, written, graded against the model, logged, is in how to use practice exams; the doctrine lives in the hub and the in room execution in the exam guide.
Priya, a Georgia citizen, buys a space heater online from HeatCo, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Texas that sells nationwide through its own web store and ships several thousand units a year into Georgia. The heater ignites at her family cabin in Tennessee, destroying it. She sues HeatCo in federal court in Georgia for 400,000 dollars, her complaint alleging only that the heater was defective and caused the fire.
HeatCo moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) and, alternatively, Rule 12(b)(6). Analyze both motions.
Personal jurisdiction over HeatCo: no traditional basis applies, so the question is Georgia's long arm statute and due process. General jurisdiction fails in two lines: HeatCo is essentially at home only in Delaware and Texas. Specific jurisdiction turns on minimum contacts: HeatCo purposefully availed itself of Georgia by operating a store that ships thousands of units there annually, direct sales rather than a stream of commerce trickle, so availment is strong.
The fight is relatedness: the claim must arise out of or relate to the Georgia contacts, and the injury happened in Tennessee to a heater bought in Georgia. Priya argues the claim relates to the Georgia sale itself, the very transaction the contacts consist of; HeatCo answers that the operative events, malfunction and harm, occurred elsewhere and Georgia's interest is thin. Relate to is broader than arise from, and a sale into the forum that later injures the buyer is close to the doctrine's core, so jurisdiction is likely proper, though reasonableness gets a sentence: litigating where the defendant sells thousands of units is not unfair.
Subject matter jurisdiction, unchallenged but worth a line: complete diversity, Georgia against Delaware and Texas, and the amount satisfied. The 12(b)(6) motion likely succeeds as pled: under the plausibility standard, the heater was defective is a legal conclusion without factual content, no defect identified, no facts making causation plausible, so dismissal with leave to amend is the probable result, and the amendment cures it. Note the shape: per issue headers, rule numbers, the built fight argued both ways, the easy kills in two lines.
Priya's amended suit goes to trial, and the jury returns a defense verdict, finding specifically that the heater was not defective. Judgment enters. Six months later she sues HeatCo in Tennessee state court for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability over the same fire.
HeatCo pleads preclusion. Analyze.
Full credit requires both doctrines run separately. Claim preclusion: a final judgment on the merits, the same parties, and the same claim under the transactional test, warranty and negligence theories arising from one fire are one claim, so the second suit is likely barred entirely, with a sentence on why a different legal theory does not escape the transaction.
Issue preclusion, run in the alternative: the no defect finding was actually litigated, decided, and essential to the judgment, so even if the claims differed, HeatCo's defensive use of the finding defeats a warranty theory that requires a defect. Award yourself the points only if you checked essential to the judgment explicitly and named the defensive posture; those two lines are where this question separates answers.
Your professor's past exams outrank everything, for the reasons and the profiling method in the practice protocol, and this is the course where the Exam Analyzer's professor profile pays most, because Civ Pro emphasis varies wildly by instructor. After those: the Glannon problems, which are calibrated near exam difficulty, other professors' released exams at your school, and the question sets linked from the outline guide's companion shell. Whatever the source, the rep only counts written, timed, and logged.
Four to six full timed exams plus weekly shorter drills like these in the final month. The funnel is a procedure, and procedures automate through repetitions, not review.
One untimed pass per archetype to learn the shapes, then the clock goes on permanently, because allocation under time is the tested skill and it cannot be rehearsed without the pressure.
Against the structure: every defendant analyzed separately, every station in order, rule numbers present, the built fight argued both directions, and one line kills actually one line. The exam guide's leak list doubles as a rubric.
Written by Ali, Georgetown Law, founder of Lovare Institut.
July 30, 2026
July 30, 2026