Jurisdiction Revision Flashcards
Three issues on jusridiction`
- Who has power to make laws?
- Which court will entertain?
- Can the law be enforced?
Extraterritorial jurisdiction in IT Act
IT Act is peculiar - has extra territorial. Section 1. Long Arm Statute.
Electronic Frontier Foundation Report
A foreign court judgement imposing fines on US Based speech that is perfectly lawful in the US can create a chilling effect on the US speaker. The Internet is too important.
Minimum contact in the IT Act
Section 75 (2). Involves a computer system or computer network located in India.
Volskwagen case name
Volkswagen v. Woodson
Volkswagen v. Woodson Facts
An automobile involved in an accident while being driven by purchasers through oklahoma. Question was whether the wholesaler and retailer both in New York could be made amenable to the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Court
Why did the Supreme Court not subject the wholesaler and retailer to personal jurisdiction?
Their only connection with that state arose as a result of the unilateral activity of the
purchasers driving the car there. There was no minimum contact in this case.
How do you establish minimum contact to bring in personal jurisdiction?
Minimum contact is not tied to mere accessibility. This is a dangerous precedent. Instead, minimum contact is tied to reasonable foreseeabiluty
What is important if it is a non-residential defendant?
Reasonable Foreseeability is important.
What was the test established in Volkswagen v Woodson?
Personal jurisdiction may be appropriate if an out of state defendant established contact with the forum state such that it should have REASONABLY FORESEEN being brought into court based on its CONDUCT and CONNECTION with it.
How do you establish purposeful availment of privilege of conducting business? What conduct and connection?
- Accesible in the country.
- Number of visitors
- Number of Members
- Number of Sales
- Delivery of Services.
Who is the reasonable foreseeability test used for?
IMPORTANT - Only for non-resident defendants. The relationship between defendant and state will be examined.
Zippo case name
Zippo manufacturing v. Zippo.com
Facts of Zippo Case
Zippo.com defendant was a californian corporation operating an internet website and an internet news service. Only had offices in California. Viewers from other states had to go to their website in order to subscribe and pay for the defendan’ts news service by filling out an online application.
How was reasonable foreseeability established in Zippo?
- Accessible in Pennsylvania
- 3000 Subscribers in Pennsylvania
- Defendant had entered into agreements with ISPs in Pennsylvania
What is the Sliding Scale Test?
The interactivity of the website must be looked at.
The court in Zippo classified websites as (i) passive, (ii) interactive and (iii) integral to the defendant’s business. On facts it was found that the Defendant’s website was an interactive one.
Interactive/active – Engage with the proprietor, make payments.
Passive – Only provides the information on the website, does not allow you to do anything, only provides information.
In case of active websites, a court would have jurisdiction. Where classification is not possible, it is based on the degree of interactivity. Accordingly, it was held that the court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
What was the three prong test created in Zippo?
- The defendant must have sufficient minimum contact with the forum state
a. Accesibility
b. Reasonable foreseeability - The claim asserted against the defendant must arise from that contact
- The exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable
Q: What is the subjective aspect of territorial jurisdiction?
A state’s power to criminalize acts physically committed within its borders.
No need to justify jurisdiction—crime location alone suffices.
Example: UK law prosecuting a murder occurring in London, regardless of the killer’s nationality.
Historically the default rule in criminal law.
Q: What is objective territorial jurisdiction, and why is it important today?
A state’s power to criminalize acts committed abroad but causing effects domestically.
Key for cybercrime/pollution: e.g., malware made abroad harming US systems.
Example: Failed US prosecution of “ILoveYou” virus creators (Philippines lacked malware laws).
Requires proving:
Harm occurred in the forum state (Effect Test).
Intentional targeting OR foreseeable effects (e.g., Zippo test for websites).
How is the Effect Test Applied in Objective Territoriality?
If the effect of the defendant’s website is felt in forum state. Impact of defendant’s action allows the state to exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.
How is jurisdiction asserted in Subjective/Objective Jurisdiction?
In case of subjective territoriality – there is no need to assert jurisdiction. In case of objective territoriality – in order to assert jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, there is a need to justify/find a basis for exercise of jurisdiction.
IT act and subjective/objective jurisdiction
Both.
Case Name - Banyan Tree
Banyan Tree Holdings v Murali Krishna Reddy
Facts in Banyan Tree
Unregistered passing off. A company registered in Singapore, a company in Hyderabad has similar website with Banyan tree name. Neither defendants nor Plaintiff resided in Delhi.
