Civil Procedure Flashcards
Shaffer v. Heitner (U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Marshall with the Majority, 1977)
Quasi in rem jurisdiction may only be asserted when the interests of the persons in the property seized have sufficient contacts, ties, or relations to the state. Owning stock of a company in a given state is not sufficient.
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court 112 - 23
BMS sued by 33 for drug not made in cali and some plaintiffs not in cali. Doesn’t work. For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue.
International Shoe Co v. Washington (U.S. Supreme Court, 1945)
International Shoe had salespeople in Washington State, was sued for not properly paying into the unemployment fund, and International Shoe challenged that it could not be sued in Washington State. The case went to the Supreme Court in 1945.
The court found that for a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a court’s in personam jurisdiction, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson (U.S. Supreme Court, 1945)
Robinsons buy a Volkswagen in New York from World-Wide Volkswagen, they are hit by a car, and significantly burned. They try to sue the dealership, World-Wide Vokswagen Corp. The Supreme Court found that world-wide had no contacts, ties, or relations with Oklahoma.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. See Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978). According to the court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), a state court may only exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state. The relationship between a non-resident defendant and the forum state must be such that it is reasonable to require the non-resident to come to the state to defend the action.
Burker King v Rudzewicz
U.S. Supreme Court, 1985
Rudzewicz get a Burger King franchise in Michigan. They did not pay their licensee fees and Burger King, headquartered in Miami, sued them in Florida. They claimed they could not be sued in Florida. The Supreme Court found that they could be.
The holding: When determining if a defendant satisfies the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction, the court must look to the purposefully directed activities of the defendant toward the forum state and whether the harms arising out of or relating to those activities are the cause of the litigation.
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (U.S. Supreme Court 1952)
Philippines company, Benquet, has a President who operates out of Ohio. Perkins sues and Benquet says it is not a U.S. Corporation.
Court says that since he paid salaries, maintained a bank account, kept an office, and had meetings in Ohio, that is sufficient for jurisdiction.
The holding is that a state court can entertain a complaint against a foreign corporation only if the corporation has substantial contacts with the state.
