Civ Pro Personal Jurisdiction Cases

Question 1

Pennoyer v. Neff (1887)

Answer 1

Personal jurisdiction is proper if the non-consenting party is served in-hand, in-state

Question 2

Hess v. Powloski (1927)

Answer 2

The idea of implied consent: By driving in that state, you impliedly consent to the registrar of motor vehicles accepting summons in-state on your behalf

Question 3

International Shoe Co v. Washington (1945)

Answer 3

Defendant need only have certain minimum contacts in a state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of “fair play and substantial justice”
–
3 types of minimum contacts (no longer used)
1. continuous/systematic
2. isolated/sporadic
3. Specific/general
—-
The claim must arise out of or relate to these minimum contacts

Does not offend notions of “fair play and substantial justice”

Question 4

Calder v. Jones (1984)

Answer 4

Rule: Defendant need not set foot in state; personal jurisdiction is sufficient if the defendant causes “effects” in the forum state

Question 5

McGee vs. International Life Insurance Company (1957)

Answer 5

A CA man had a life insurance policy by a Texas insurer. Company refused to pay out.
RULE: Jurisdiction satisfies due process when the defendant has knowledge with substantial certainty that by conducting business with someone there, they make a contact with that state.
–
KNOWLEDGE IS THE TEST, NOT PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT
—
The fair/reasonableness factors
1. Burden of the defendant
2. Forum state’s interest
3. Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
4. Interstate judiciary’s interest in resolving controversies
5. Interests of substantive social justice

Question 6

Hanson v. Denckla (1958)

Answer 6

TERRIBLE PRECEDENT
The two sisters were fighting over the trust. The court twisted the law so as not to create an obviously unfair result. Since then, courts have been relying on this bad precedent to push an agenda.
–
The defendant must purposefully avail themselves (meaning to intentionally conduct business there) even if they knew they were conducting business with someone who moved to another state.

THE ZOMBIE CASE

Question 7

World wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980)

Answer 7

Brought Hansen back from the dead.
Family bought their car in NY, got into an accident while driving in OK, and sued the car dealership and distributor in NY for negligence in selling them a defectively designed car.
The defendants argued that they did not purposefully avail themselves to OK and the Supreme Court agreed.
—
Justice White said the “minimum contacts” thing protects states by ensuring they are soverigns within our system (but rescinded that 2 years later)

Question 8

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985)

Answer 8

Mirrored McGee.
Returned to the knowledge with substantial certainty creates minimum contacts idea and the fairness factors.

Question 9

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987)

Answer 9

DIVIDED OPINION
1. Yes to personal jurisdiction (the stream of commerce is enough to create KSC of minimum contacts)
2. No (O’Connor): there were not enough minimum contacts so it would offend fair play and substantial justice
—
Implied majority on the stream of commerce (they were mostly in agreement) that if the SoC is heavy and significant enough, it may create personal jurisdiction)

Question 10

J. McIntyre v. Nicastro (2011)

Answer 10

DIVIDED OPINON
1. No to PJ - Kennedy - personal jurisdiction can only happen if the company purposefully avails itself

Question 11

Daimler v. AG Bauman (2014)

Answer 11

Using I-Shoe precedent, but RBG narrowed general jurisdiction to only cover companies “at home,” that is their principal state of incorporation or operations. Applies to foreign companies only if they have continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state.

Question 12

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (2017)

Answer 12

Majority opinion written by Alito
1. The “sliding scale” rule the CA courts relied on to link the looser out-of-state claims together due to BMS’ significant contacts with CA was essentially bringing back general jurisdiction, which had been done away with by the “at home” ruling in Daimler.
2. Relied on the concept of state sovereignty from WWV (which was disavowed by Justice White 2 years later)
3. Jurisdiction is not proper because the claims did not directly “arise out of or relate to” the claims in CA; they happened in another state entirely. Them mirroring claims in CA is not enough.

Question 13

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District (2021)

Answer 13

Court found Ford had massive contacts in both states enough for jurisdiction to be proper.

Question 14

The Ager v Jane C. Stormont Hospital & Training School for Nurses factors

Answer 14

1. The manner in which the consultation was initiated
2. The nature, type, and extent of the info or material provided by the expert
3. The duration and intensity of the consultative relationship
4. The terms of the consultation (if any- payment, etc)