Cases

Question 1

Pennoyer v. Neff

Answer 1

In order for a state to have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, that defendant must have a physical presence in the state.

Question 2

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Answer 2

‘Minimum Contacts’ Test: a court has personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if that defendant has “certain minimum contact with the [forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”

Question 3

McGee v. International Life Insurance

Answer 3

• A single, relevant contract with the forum state can establish specific jurisdiction if it is accompanied by substantial contacts.
• These contacts do not have to be physical and can include exchanging money (e.g. paying premiums).

Question 4

Hanson v. Denckla

Answer 4

Unilateral activity (e.g. a single contract) with the forum state does not establish specific jurisdiction.

Question 5

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

Answer 5

• The ‘foreseeability’ of a product ending up in the forum state does not establish specific jurisdiction.
• The ‘foreseeability’ of the defendant facing a lawsuit in the forum state, through its “conduct and connection” with the forum state, does establish specific jurisdiction.
• An isolated contact does not establish specific jurisdiction.

Question 6

J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro

Answer 6

• A single product that passively ends up in the forum state through the ‘stream of commerce’ does not establish specific jurisdiction
• The foreign and/or out-of-state company must directly target the forum state’s market for the sale of their product.

Question 7

Ford Motor v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court

Answer 7

• Contacts only need to relate to the injury, not be the cause of it.
• The foreign and/or out-of-state company must directly target the forum state’s market for the sale of their product.
• The ‘foreseeability’ of the defendant facing a lawsuit in the forum state, through its “conduct and connection” with the forum state, does establish specific jurisdiction.

Question 8

Abdouch v. Lopez

Answer 8

• Minimum contacts can be established by internet interactions, but these must be targeted at the forum state.
• The foreign and/or out-of-state company must directly target the forum state’s market for the sale of their product.

Question 9

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Answer 9

• A single contract does not establish minimum contacts, there must also be a substantial relationship between the defendant and the forum state.
• Contacts do not have to be physical.

Question 10

Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown

Answer 10

• A product that passively ends up in the forum state through the ‘stream of commerce’ does not establish general jurisdiction.
• A corporation incorporated or headquartered in the forum state is under general jurisdiction.

Question 11

Daimler v. Bauman

Answer 11

• The mere fact of a corporation doing business with the forum state does not establish general jurisdiction.
• Even if its subsidiary is ‘at home’ in the forum state, the corporation is not automatically considered at home and therefore not under general jurisdiction.

Question 12

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court

Answer 12

• Even if its subsidiary is ‘at home’ in the forum state, the corporation is not automatically considered at home and therefore not under general jurisdiction.
• The foreign and/or out-of-state company must directly target the forum state’s market for the sale of their product.

Question 13

Burnham v. Superior Court

Answer 13

If a defendant is served papers in the forum state, that individual is automatically under the general jurisdiction of that state.

Question 14

Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute

Answer 14

*If a forum selection clause was not obtained in bad faith or through fraud - and the forum state is reasonable - then the fact it was non-negotiable and assumed to be standard procedure does not invalidate the clause.

Question 15

Atlantic Marine Construction

Answer 15

• Under §1404 and the forum non conveniens doctrine, the court must transfer cases to the appropriate venue.
• Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, valid forum selection clauses should be honored.

Question 16

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank

Answer 16

• This case established the notice requirement that the type of notice given must be “reasonably calculated under all of the circumstances”.
• Notice requirement:
• Defendants whose interests or addresses cannot be determined: indirect publication is appropriate
• Defendants whose interests or addresses can only be determined through extensive searches: if the search is unreasonably impractical and/or extensive, indirect publication is appropriate
• Defendants whose interests or address are known: notice by mail is required.

Question 17

Jones v. Flowers

Answer 17

If a mailed notice is returned unclaimed, the State must take additional, reasonable steps to serve the defendant. This includes: resending by regular mail, posting a notice on the front door. The State is not required to search for a new address.

Question 18

Covey v. Town of Somers

Answer 18

Serving an incompetent without the supervision of a guardian violates the Due Process clause.

Question 19

Greene v. Lindsey

Answer 19

Posting a notice on a defendant’s door may technically satisfy Due Process unless it is known the defendant would not see it.

Question 20

Thompson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Answer 20

If the defendant is not a resident of a state, nor did a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the suit arose , under §1391(b) there is no jurisdiction.

Question 21

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

Answer 21

If there is a foreign plaintiff then their forum choice carries less weight than a US plaintiff’s might.

Question 22

Gibbons v. Brown

Answer 22

• Previous lawsuits do not establish jurisdiction over defendants in future lawsuits.
• A plaintiff must show that a defendant falls under the state long-arm statute and satisfy minimum contacts in order to establish jurisdiction.

Question 23

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley

Answer 23

Well-pleaded complaint rule: the plaintiff must put forward a federal question in the complaint to establish federal question jurisdiction. It is not enough for the court to anticipate a defense which may contain a federal question. This rule is conclusive/a bright line.

Question 24

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Answer 24

In the context of subject matter jurisdiction, the ‘principal place of business’ means “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities” - the ‘nerve center’

Question 25

Haddle v. Garrison

Answer 25

Legal insufficiency: “even if everything you allege is true [and the court assumes all the facts you allege is true], the law affords you no relief”

Question 26

Conley v. Gibson

Answer 26

• Low bar: general allegations without specific facts, conclusory statements and stating the possibility of discovery facts were sufficient.
• “A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim”.

Question 27

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly

Answer 27

Overturned Conley and established a new ‘plausibility’ rule. A complaint requires facts (although they do not have to be detailed) that point to ‘plausibility’. A complaint must have “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face… [to nudge] their claim across the line from conceivable to plausible”.

Question 28

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Answer 28

• Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations but must be more than “unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation”.
• Established a two-pronged approach: (1) disregard legal conclusions and (2) ask whether factual assertions state that a claim is “plausible on its face” - the facts must allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference” of liability, facts consistent with liability are not sufficient
• What is insufficient? Bare assertions, legal conclusions, recitation of elements

Question 29

Walker v. Norwest Corp.

Answer 29

Plaintiff failed to plead the defendants’ citizenships and therefore violated 11(b)(3). They had not done the research to determine the defendants’ citizenships and therefore could not establish complete diversity. Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate in this case.

Question 30

Christian v. Mattel

Answer 30

The plaintiff failed to conduct an adequate fact investigation, which would have easily contradicted the factual assertions in the claim and therefore violated Rule 11.
Rule 11 only covers signed papers, not the outside conduct of an attorney.

Question 31

Moore v. Baker

Answer 31

The proposed amendment concerned a different set of facts than arose from the original transaction or occurrence and therefore under Rule 15(c)(2) the amendment was not allowed.

Question 32

Bonerb v. Richard J Caron Foundation

Answer 32

The proposed amendment, although it did not specifically involve the original claim, arose from the same general set of facts and therefore under Rule 15(c)(2) was permitted.

Question 33

Temple v. Synthes

Answer 33

Joint tortfeasors are permissive rather than required parties and therefore do not need to be joined in a single lawsuit.

Question 34

Price v. CTB

Answer 34

A defendant can implead anyone is may be liable for the damages. The question is not whether the third party defendant is liable but rather whether there is a legal basis to implead the third party defendant.

Question 35

Cordero v. Voltaire

Answer 35

Court has jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim if it is so related to the plaintiff’s claim that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

Question 36

Mosley v. General Motors

Answer 36

• “Same transaction or occurrence” can be loosely defined as logically or reasonably related to the events/series of events in controversey.
• In employment discrimination cases, the fact that all claims related to discriminatory policies establishes a question of common law or fact.