Midterm Cases Flashcards
McGee v. Int’l Life Insurance Co.
Facts: Texas life insurance refuses to pay California beneficiary. P wins judgment in Cali and Texas refuses to enforce it.
Held: Texas must enforce due to the Full Faith and Credit clause (US Const. art IV § 1)
Shaffer v. Heitner
Held: Int’l Shoe applies to individual people as well as corporations. “All assertions of state-court jurisdiction.”
Hanson v. Denckla (and dissent)
Facts: P trust w/ Delaware company. Moves to FL. Cut third daughter out who doesn’t execute correctly. Other daughters sue 3rd in FL court. Delaware law would refuse to cut 3rd out. Did FL have jurisdiction?
Held: FL has no PJ. Trust has never “reached out” to FL. No trust assets ever held there. No minimum contacts.
MUST PURPOSEFULLY AVAIL ITSELF to the state thus invoking benefits and protections of the law.
Dissent: FL had PJ through sufficient contacts since appointment of executor in FL, both beneficiaries in FL, and trust was controlled from FL, DE only because it’s favorable to corps. not really there.
How is Hanson different from McGee?
McGee: TX insurence co sold to and had a contract with a Cali resident. “based on a contract which had substantial connection.”
Hanson: Trust never “reached out.” Only connection trust had to FL was P died there.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Facts = P are NY residents bought car in NY and drove to OK where car caught fire in wreck and P’s bring PL suit in OK.
Held = no PJ. No advertisement or sale in OK (didn’t avail or benefit). Foreseeability that product can end up there is not enough — need efforts to avail to that state directly or indirectly.
J. McIntyre Mach. Ltd. v. Nicastro (3 holdings)
Facts: P injured by metal cutter sold by British D who used 3rd party distributor. PL claim in NJ.
Plurality = No Pj. Targeted US as a whole so no specific state.
Concurrence = No PJ. one sale not enough (see World-Wide)
Dissent = PJ. Shouldn’t targeting the whole US make you liable in every state?
What do they agree on that is binding? Only that there is no PJ.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Dist. Ct.
Facts: two suits over PL ford. One Montana one MN. No evidence specific vehicles were sold, designed, or anything else in Montana or MN (secondhand sales).
Held: PJ exists because even though no direct causality Ford was doing RELATED contacts enough to support PJ such as advertising and maintenance.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown
Facts: Two NC boys die in France bus accident. PL against OH parent company in NC court. Sells their tires in NC.
Held: No PJ. State court confused GJ and SJ. GJ requires “continuous and systematic” contacts that make the corporation “essentially at home.”
Guideline (bad law after Daimler)
Daimler AG v. Bauman
Facts: Argentine military kidnap and kill political people. Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MBA) helped (D is parent of MBA). D also parent of MB-Cali. Suit in Cali arguing GJ.
Held: no GJ. Essentially at home for a corporation requires either the state of incorporation of the state(s) with headquarters (“principal place of business”)
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court
Facts: P sue alleging drug Plavix harmed their health in CA. Only 86/678 P’s were CA residents. BMS didn’t market, or make drug in CA, but did have employees there and sell the drug. CA court held SJ for all P’s.
SCOTUS held = no GJ or SJ. Non-CA P’s have no relevance or contacts to CA. They can sue in their own state. (insufficient contacts with CA and they can sue elsewhere)
Dissent: BMS advertises to CA. Do you really have to take the drug there to have PJ? Why sue in 34 states when you can sue in 1? Some P’s might not be able to sue if not class action. (sufficient contacts with CA and they can’t likely sue elsewhere).
Bristol-Myers Squibb problem
How do you know where BMS made the drug or their marketing strategy without discovery?
Burnham v. Superior Court
Facts: married couple in NJ separates. Wife moves to CA with kids. Husband goes to see kids in CA (no other CA contacts). While there, gets personally served for divorce in CA court.
Held: PJ due to tag jurisdiction or Transient jurisdiction.
No majority opinion, but a majority agreed that transient jurisdiction does exist…
1) Historical evidence cited by Scalia
2) “Fairness” identified by Brennan
3) “Common sense displayed by” White
Stevens ^^ agree with this stuff but Scalia and Brennan reach too far.
Lucy Webb Hayes Nat’l Training Sch. v. Geoghegan
Facts: woman long term patient of hospital no longer needs service told to move to nursing home. Husband refuses and wants wife to stay for rest of life.
Held: Specific performance appropriate because also satisfies public interest — want hospital beds to be available for those who actually need them.
Detroit Will Breathe v. City of Detroit
Facts: P’s protest against excessive use of force by police. TRO against police tactics during protests.
Held: Courts need to weigh interests and make sure benefits to P outweigh disadvantage to D. Court temporarily enjoined from using striking weapons, chemical agents, chokeholds, excessive restraint, and vehicle ramming.
Winter v. NRDC
Facts: P’s sue navy for environmental violations to marine animals. Seek preliminary injunction against certain training activities like active sonar because it would harm animals.
Held: P’s must show a LIKELIHOOD of irreparable injury, not just a possibility.
