Ch. 2 - PJ

Question 1

Pennoyer v. Neff

Answer 1

NEED!

Question 2

14th Amendment

Answer 2

forbids the sates from “depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”

Question 3

what constitutes proper personal jurisdiction?

Answer 3

1. domicile
2. consent
3. in state service of process
4. “min. contact” standard

Question 4

International Shoe v. Washington

Answer 4

1. supreme court held that the courts of a state may exercise PJ over a D if they have minimum contact with the state that it would be fair to require them to return & defense a lawsuit in that state
2. permissibility depends on the “quality & nature” of the contacts with the state
3. in this case the corporation was held subject to PJ in Washington for claims arising out of its shoe sales in that state, but the corporation could not have been required to defend a claim in Washington for shoe sales in TX under min. contact

Question 5

The Min. Contact Test

Answer 5

Minimum contact jurisdiction is limited to claims arising from or related to the Ds contact with the forum state

Question 6

Personam Jurisdiction

Answer 6

jurisdiction over claims arising out of a single act

Question 7

“specific” personam jurisdiction

Answer 7

Jurisdiction over claims arising out of continuous activity

Question 8

general in personam jurisdiction

Answer 8

D may be sued in the state for any claim, even one completely unrelated to its in-state activities

Question 9

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown

Answer 9

Holding: Foreign Subsidiaries were not subject to general personal jurisdiction in North Carolina even if tires had been distributed in NC
1. The court rejected the argument that cont. sales into the state suffice to support general personal jurisdiction.
2. the court affirmed that general jurisdiction is in the principle place of business & the location in which the business was incorporated

Question 10

Daimler AG v. Bauman

Answer 10

Holding: even though the D had extensive contact in Cali, it was not subject to general PJ

Question 11

Minimum Contact Test Guidelines

Answer 11

1. applies to individual s as well as Corporate Ds
2. limitations on PJ found in long-arm statutes are distinct from constitutional limit imposed by the minimum contact test
3. D may have sufficient contact with a state to support min. contact jurisdiction there even though they did not act within the state
4. minimum contacts analysis focuses on the time when the D conducted activities focused on that state, not the time of the lawsuit
5. D may sometimes be subject to PJ even if the claim does not arise directly from its in-state contacts if the claim is related to those contacts

Question 12

Calder v. Jones

Answer 12

the D was held subject to PJ in Cali for an allegedly defamatory article written in FL, since the article was to be circulated in Cali, the P lived there and the P career was centered there

Question 13

Burnham v. Superior Court of Cali

Answer 13

Jurisdiction based on in-state service only requires that the D be present in the forum state at the time that the summons & complaint are served upon her
(the D does not need to have any contact with the sated at the time of the events giving rise to the suit)

Question 14

Ford Motor Company v. Montana 8th Judicial District

Answer 14

NEED!

Question 15

Hanson v. Denckla

Answer 15

1. D must purposely avail itself of the privilege of conduction activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits & protections of its laws”

Question 16

Purposeful Availment

Answer 16

1. D must have “purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”

Question 17

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

Answer 17

1. The court concluded jay Seaway, a NY Audi dealer , had not purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to conduct activities in OK, although it could foresee that its buyers might take their cars to OK.
2. the dealership did not sold car there, advertised there, cultivated customers in OK, or deliberately focus on the OK market THEREFORE.. it had not sought any direct benefit from OK activities sufficient to require it to submit to jurisdiction there

Question 18

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

Answer 18

D had purposely availed itself of the opportunity to engage in in-state activities, by distributing imagines within the forum state

Question 19

Stream of Commerce