Personal & General Jurisdiction Flashcards
Pennoyer (3)
3 Traditional Bases of Exercising Personal Jurisdiction for in personam cases
(1) ∆ consents
(2) ∆ served in the forum state
(3) ∆ domiciled in the forum state
Hess (less relevant)
Court expands on the idea of consent. ∆ may impliedly consent to jurisdiction and substituted service of process if they utilize something in the state
(i.e. roads – DMV becomes agent)
International Shoe
Court expands on the idea of presence. For a state to assert specific jurisdiction over an out of state ∆, DP requires that ∆ satisfy minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Calder (Express Aiming)
Calder Effects Test: A forum’s courts can constitutionally exercise PJ over a ∆ if the effects of the ∆’s intentionally tortious conduct was felt in the state.
Keeton (Express Aiming
PJ is proper over a non-resident ∆ corporation in any state where ∆ corp. sold and distributed a substantial number of goods. Satisfies Min. Contacts
Walden (Express Aiming)
PJ can’t be exercised over a non-resident ∆ if the ∆’s sole contact with the forum state is knowledge that ∆’s tortious conduct committed outside the state has an effect on π in that state.
There are only sufficient min. contacts if ∆:
(1) Located in or travels to forum
(2) Conducts activity within forum
(3) Contacts someone residing in forum
(4) Sends anything to forum
Hanson (Purposeful Availment)
∆ subject to PJ only if ∆ “purposefully avails” itself to the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state because ∆ is calling upon the benefits and protections of the state’s laws
WWV (Purposeful Targeting v. Stream of Commerce)
Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of PJ over a non-resident ∆ that has no contacts, ties, or relations to the forum state. There must be minimum contacts or purposeful availment. The unilateral acts of a π cannot be imputed on the ∆.
5 Fairness Factors (Burger King)
(1) ∆’s burden
(2) Forum state’s interest
(3) π’s interest in convenient and effective relief
(4) Judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution
(5) State’s shared interest in furthering fundamental social policies
Asahi (Purposeful Targeting v. Stream of Commerce)
Awareness that products will reach a state in the “stream of commerce” does not satisfy the minimum contacts needed for the forum state to exercise PJ over that business. Asahi did not cater, market, advertise, directly contact consumers, or contract 3rd parties to sell product in the forum.
J. McIntyre (Purposeful Targeting v. Stream of Commerce)
For a ∆ to be subject to a state’s PJ, it must purposefully avail itself to the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Telemedicine (Internet)
To assert PJ over a web company, there must be deliberate targeting of customers in the forum or express aiming at the forum with the knowledge that harm will be felt in the forum.
Interactivity with a website might show evidence of contact with a state, but not a great measure of purposeful availment.
Burger King (Purposeful Directing / Substantial Connection)
When determining if a ∆ satisfies the minimum contacts requirement for PJ, the court must look to the purposefully directed activities of the ∆ toward the forum state and whether the harm arising out of or relating to those activities are the cause of litigation.
McGee (Purposeful Directing / Substantial Connection)
A state court has jurisdiction over an out of state company if the company has “substantial connection” with the state.
BMS (Purposeful Targeting v. Stream of Commerce)
For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue.
