J&J cases Flashcards
Harris v. Balk
1905-
It ought to be and it is the object of courts to prevent the payment of any debt twice over.
Plaintiff sought review of the appellate court’s decision denying the effect of a Maryland judgment for plaintiff in plaintiff’s action to recover a debt from defendant owed to plaintiff. Plaintiff attached the debt owed by the garnishee to defendant. Plaintiff personally served the garnishee, a non-resident of Maryland, with notice of suit for the debt to be tried in Maryland. Defendant claimed that the debt owed by the garnishee in North Carolina did not follow the garnishee when the garnishee travelled to Maryland and that Maryland courts could not gain jurisdiction over the garnishee. The United States Court of Appeals reversed.
The garnishee’s debt owed to defendant followed the garnishee everywhere. Since Maryland had a law that would allow defendant to pursue the debt owed by the garnishee to defendant, plaintiff could attach the debt owed by the garnishee to defendant, even though the garnishee was not a Maryland resident. The garnishee’s failure to notify defendant of attachment was not prejudicial because defendant had the opportunity to show that he did not owe a debt to plaintiff.
Hess v. Pawloski
1927- No jurisdiction (service by using state’s interstate)
A state’s power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents. A state may declare that the use of the highway by a non-resident is the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as agent on whom process may be served.
Facts: A Pennsylvania resident negligently and wantonly drove a motor vehicle on a public highway in Massachusetts and struck and injured an individual in the process. A case was filed against him to recover damages for the personal injuries. No personal service was made on him and no property belonging to him was attached. The service of process was made in compliance with Massachusetts Law. Pennsylvania resident argued that service of process deprived him of his property without due process of law.
Conclusion: The Court declared that Massachusetts had personal jurisdiction over him where the state, if making no hostile discrimination against non-residents, could declare the use of a highway by a non-resident was the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as agent on whom process may be served, such that service was made upon plaintiff in error’s authorized agent. The Court further held that in order to obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, there had to be actual service within the state of notice upon him or upon someone authorized to accept service for him. The Court further held the state, if making no hostile discrimination against non-residents, was empowered to declare that the use of a highway by a non-resident was the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as agent on whom process could be served. Accordingly, the judgment that denied plaintiff in error’s request for dismissal was affirmed.
International Shoe v. Washington
1945- Jurisdiction (minimum contact such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)
Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he is not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Facts- International Shoe Co. was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. While the corporation did not have an office in Washington (“State”), it employed eleven to thirteen salesmen, who were residents of the State and who exhibited product samples to prospective buyers from the State. The corporation compensated the salesmen in the form of commissions for any sales from customers they solicited. Due to these business activities, the State issued a Notice of Assessment holding the corporation liable for contributions to the State’s unemployment compensation fund by virtue of the Washington Unemployment Compensation Act. Notice was served via mail and personal service to the Washington salesmen. The corporation refused to pay, arguing that they were not conducting business in Washington and thus the State had no jurisdiction over it. They further argued that the service of notice was insufficient to constitute due process. The trial court ruled in favor of the State and the Supreme Court of Washington ruled that there was sufficient business activity to hold the corporation liable for taxes to the State. The corporation appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The activities carried on in the state of Washington on behalf of the Corporation were neither irregular nor casual. They were systematic and continuous throughout the years in question. They resulted in a large volume of interstate business, in the course of which appellant received the benefits and protection of the laws of the state, including the right to resort to the courts for the enforcement of its rights. The obligation which is here sued upon arose out of those very activities. It is evident that the operations of the salesmen in Washington established sufficient contacts or ties with the state to make it reasonable and just, according to traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice, to permit the state to enforce the obligations which appellant has incurred there. Hence we cannot say that the maintenance of the present suit in the State of Washington involves an unreasonable or undue procedure. It is enough that appellant established such contacts with the state that the particular form of substituted service adopted there gives reasonable assurance that the notice will be actual.
Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson
1980- purposeful availment
The foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum state. Rather, it is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
plaintiffs bought car in NY then moved to OK; defendant had no other connection to the state
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed. The court held that under the rule that a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state, the Oklahoma trial court could not, consistently with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise in personam jurisdiction over the New York automobile retailer and wholesale distributor, since the only connection between Oklahoma and such defendants–who closed no sales and performed no services in Oklahoma, who availed themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of Oklahoma law, who solicited no business in Oklahoma either through salespersons or through advertising reasonably calculated to reach Oklahoma, and who did not regularly sell cars at wholesale or retail to Oklahoma customers or residents or indirectly, through others, serve or seek to serve the Oklahoma market–was the fortuitous circumstance that a single automobile, sold by the defendants in New York to New York residents, happened to suffer an accident while passing through Oklahoma.
Asahi v. California
1987- stream of commerce
Rule: The determination of the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction in each case will depend on an evaluation of several factors. A court must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum state, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief. It must also weigh in its determination the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
Pure stream of commerce v stream of commerce plus
Facts: A Japanese company manufactures tire valve assemblies in Japan and sells them to several tire manufacturers, including a Taiwanese company. The Taiwanese company incorporates the assemblies into its finished tires, which it sells throughout the world, including the United States, where 20% of its sales takes place in California. In 1978, in Solano County, California, the driver of a motorcycle lost control of his vehicle and collided with a tractor, as a result of which he was severely injured and his passenger, who was his wife, was killed. Could the court exercise jurisdiction over the Japanese company consistent with the due process clause? No because the original plaintiff settled and California no longer had jurisdiction over the Japanese company that the Taiwanese company filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnification from.
Conclusion: The Court held that the state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Japanese company was unreasonable and unfair, so as to violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The mere fact that petitioner knew that some of its component parts would be used in products that would be sold in the state did not provide the necessary minimum contacts for the state to exercise personal jurisdiction over petitioner, since petitioner did nothing to purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state. Therefore, since there were no minimum contacts, the state was estopped by Fourteenth Amendment due process from exercising personal jurisdiction over petitioner.
J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro
2011- Stream of commerce
The United States Supreme Court has stated that a defendant’s placing goods into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers within the forum State may indicate purposeful availment. the defendant must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Sometimes a defendant does so by sending its goods rather than its agents. The defendant’s transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum State.
Respondent injured his hand while using a metal-shearing machine that petitioner British manufacturer produced in England. Petitioner’s company is incorporated and operates in England. Respondent filed a consumer’s products-liability suit in a state court in New Jersey, where the accident occurred. Petitioner sought to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction. Respondent’s jurisdictional claim was based on three primary facts: A U. S. distributor agreed to sell petitioner’s machines in the US, its officials attended trade shows in several States, albeit not in New Jersey, and no more than four machines (the record suggests only one), including the one at issue, ended up in New Jersey. The state court entered judgment for respondent. On appeal, the court reversed.
In products-liability cases, it was a defendant’s purposeful availment that made jurisdiction consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The transmission of goods permitted the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant targeted the forum; generally, it was not enough that it might have predicted its goods would reach the forum State. The manufacturer directed marketing and sales efforts at the U.S., but the question was whether the New Jersey state court had the authority to exercise jurisdiction; thus, it was the manufacturer’s purposeful contacts with New Jersey, not with the U.S., that alone were relevant. The manufacturer had no office in New Jersey; it neither paid taxes nor owned property there; and it neither advertised in, nor sent any employees to, the State. It did not have a single contact with New Jersey short of the product in question ending up in New Jersey. The Supreme Court of New Jersey’s holding was error.
BK v. Rudzewicz
1985- Choice of Law vs. choice of forum; contracts; long arm statute
Rule: Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum state, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.
Facts: A Florida corporation with principal offices in Miami and which conducted most of its restaurant business through a franchise operation brought an action for breach of contract in Florida against two franchisees, Michigan residents, alleging that these franchisees had breached the franchise agreement for their restaurant, located in Michigan. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction, ruling that pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute, a nonresident franchisee of the plaintiff was subject to in personam jurisdiction in Florida in actions arising out of its franchise agreement. The court subsequently entered judgment against the defendants. One defendant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed the judgment, concluding that the district court could not properly exercise personal jurisdiction pursuant to the long-arm statute because the circumstances of the franchise and the negotiations which led to it left the defendants bereft of reasonable notice and financially unprepared for the prospect of franchise litigation in Florida.
Must look at length of contract and contact
Long arm statute: Florida extends jurisdiction to any person who breaches a contract on the state of Florida by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed by the state, so long as alleged act arises out of the contract breach
Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court held that Florida courts had jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute because a party that avails itself of the protections and benefits of the law of a forum state is subject to personal jurisdiction of that state. The Court found that the appellees had entered into a contract and established a substantial and continuing relationship with the appellant, a Florida resident. The Court further found that the appellee had fair notice that he might be subject to suit in Florida. The court further found that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend due process and reversed the holding of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings.
Shaffer v. Heitner
1977-
The relationship among a defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the states is the central concern of the inquiry into the constitutionality of an exercise of personal jurisdiction.
A nonresident of Delaware who owned stock in a corporation that was incorporated in Delaware but which maintained its principal office in Arizona, brought a shareholder’s derivative action in the Court of Chancery for New Castle County, Delaware, naming as defendants the corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporation, and 28 present or former officers of one or both corporations. Pursuant to the nonresident’s motion under 10 Del C. 366, the court sequestered certain property, primarily stock, of a number of the nonresident individual defendants. Defendants contended, inter alia, that they did not have sufficient contacts with Delaware to sustain the jurisdiction of that state’s courts, but the Court of Chancery ruled that the situs of the stock, which was by Delaware statute considered to be within that state, provided a sufficient basis for the exercise of quasi in rem jurisdiction by a Delaware Court. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the minimum contacts rule was not applicable since the jurisdiction in this case was quasi in rem and founded on the presence of stock in the Delaware.
Whether the minimum contacts test of International Shoe should have been applied to assertions of in rem as well as in personam jurisdiction. yes.
On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment. In support of its ruling, the Court held that the minimum contacts test of International Shoe should have been applied to assertions of in rem as well as in personam jurisdiction. The Court noted that defendants’ seized property did not have sufficient contacts with the state to support Delaware’s assertion of jurisdiction over defendants. The Court further held that defendants had neither purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the state, nor had any reason to expect to be brought before a Delaware court.
Burnham v. California
Divorce, California had personal jurisdiction because husband was in California for 3 days
Goodyear v. Brown
Mullane v. Central
1950- constitutional requirement of notice and method of service of process
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendancy of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
Appellee bank and a trust company established a common trust fund that complied with N.Y. Banking Law Section 100-c. Appellee petitioned for a settlement of its first account as a common trustee. Upon the filing of the petition, appellant was appointed the special guardian. The only notice given to the beneficiaries was by a publication in a local newspaper that was in strict compliance with Section 100-c. Appellant objected, contending that the notice and statutory provisions for notice to beneficiaries were inadequate to afford due process. The New York Court of Appeals overruled the objection.
The Court reversed, holding that the notice requirement under Section 100-c was inadequate because it did not provide for a means to contact those who could easily be informed by other means. The notice had to reasonably convey the required information and afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.
McGee v. International Life Ins.
When a state court’s jurisdiction is based on a contract that has a substantial connection with another state, due process is satisfied. In other words, a state court can enforce a judgment from another state, if there are “minimum contacts” with their own state.
Ins. company contacts decedent; ins. company is taken over by International; International then mails recertification and contract; upon death McGee send death cert. to Int’l; They refuse to pay; it was reasonably foreseeable that they would have to defend themselves in the state; they purposefully availed themselves.
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Texas court of civil appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on International because McGee’s suit was based on a contract that had a substantial connection with California. The insurance policy was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there, and Franklin, the insured, was a resident of California when he died. There was no contention that International did not have adequate notice of the suit or sufficient time to prepare its defenses and appear.
Hanson v. Denckla
1958- moved after contact was made (unilateral activity)
A defendant cannot be called upon to defend an action in a different State unless they have “minimal contacts,” with that State. The defendant must purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Testatrix, who became a domiciliary of Florida after executing a trust in Delaware, and who executed in Florida a will and a power of appointment of the trust assets, died in Florida.
Florida courts lacked jurisdiction in rem over the action involving the trust, since the trust situs was in another state, and that those courts also lacked jurisdiction in personam over the trustee because there were no minimum contacts with Florida prerequisite to the exercise of power over him. And, since it was found that under Florida law a trustee is an indispensable party over whom the Florida court must acquire jurisdiction before it has power to enter judgment in a proceeding affecting the validity of the trust, the Florida decree was held of no effect, and not entitled to full faith and credit in Delaware.
Calder v. Jones
1984- effects test on libel of magazine targeting celebrity in their home state, magazine purposely availed itself
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any state with which the defendant has certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
The California resident brought a libel action against a national magazine based in Florida and against its reporter and magazine’s editor, individually. Both reporter and magazine’s editor were served by mail in Florida. They both moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. The lower court granted the motion. On appeal, the state appellate court reversed the lower court order and found jurisdiction. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal.
The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction was proper based upon the effects of their intentional conduct in California. Respondent’s career was centered in California, the article was drawn from California sources, and the harm was suffered in California. The Supreme Court noted that petitioners were not charged with untargeted negligence, but rather their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California, and under the circumstances, petitioners must have reasonably anticipated being sued there. The Supreme Court held that petitioners’ status as employees did not shield them from jurisdiction, because their individual contacts with California were sufficient.
Burdick v. Superior Court
2015- aiming activity toward person v. aiming activity toward the state; effects test fails- no personal jurisdiction
When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, however, it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. The plaintiff must present facts demonstrating that the conduct of defendants related to the pleaded causes is such as to constitute constitutionally cognizable minimum contacts.
Plaintiffs sued defendant Douglas Burdick, an Illinois resident, for defamation and other intentional torts, based on an allegedly defamatory posting made by Burdick on his personal Facebook page while he was in Illinois. Respondent court denied Burdick’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Burdick has challenged that ruling by petition for writ of mandate or prohibition.
The appellate court granted nonresident defendant’s writ petition and held that California residents who alleged that a nonresident had defamed them by way of Internet social media posting failed to meet their burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10, because the nonresident’s knowledge that the allegedly defamatory posting might harm people in California did not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement under the effects test, absent evidence that the posting had a California audience and had been expressly aimed or intentionally targeted at California.
