Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

Specific Jurisdiction

Pennoyer v. Neff

Answer 1

In-state, in-hand service satisfied due process for in personam jurisdiction

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 2

Specific Jurisdiction

Hess v. Pawloski

Answer 2

Implied consent to personal jurisdiction

State does not have power to apply implied consent, later resolved

Question 3

Specific Jurisdiction

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Answer 3

1. Minimum contacts with forum state
2. Did the controversy arise from the contact
3. Fair play and substantial justice

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 4

Specific Jurisdiction - contract

McGee v. Internat’l Ins. Co.

Answer 4

That an isolated contact with the state can satisfy the minimum contacts test when the controversy arose from the contact.

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 5

Specific Jurisdiciton - contract

Hanson v. Denckla

Answer 5

Purposeful availment (unilateral and fortuitous contact does not satisfy minimum contacts)

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 6

Specific Jurisdiciton - stream of commerce

Gray v American Radiator

Answer 6

Product was sent from Ohio to Penn to be assembled and controversy arose in Illinois. Court determined that tort was committed where the plaintiff felt it, not where the item was manufactured.

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 7

Specific Jurisdiction

WWVW v. Woodson

Answer 7

Reestablishes “purposeful availment” as test for minimum contacts - “fair play and substantial justice” are met but still no PJx. Defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state.

4(k)(1)

Question 8

Specific Jurisdiction

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine

Answer 8

Arise out of/relate to can be established the effect in the forum state even if D has no physical contact with state

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 9

Specific Jurisdiction - publication

Calder v. Jones establish

Answer 9

Defendant’s actions were directed at the forum state and had an effect in the forum state even though defendant had no actual contact with the forum

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 10

Specific Jurisdiction - publication

What do we learn from Walden v. Fiore?

Answer 10

Contact with a resident in another state that “effects” the plaintiff when they return home does not establish contact with the forum state.

Question 11

Specific Jurisdiction - contract

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Answer 11

Ease of travel changes the “fair play and substantial justice” factors, traditional roles of buyers and sellers do not always determine the forum state

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 12

Specific Jurisdiction - stream of commerce

Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal

Answer 12

Look to the volume, value, and hazardous nature to determine if stream of commerce is met, then evaluate if traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice would be met

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 13

Specific Jurisdiciton

What does J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro establish

Answer 13

Tries to establish “submission to sovereignty” as the test of purposeful availment, but again, no majority.`

Question 14

Specific Jurisdiciton

BMS v. Superior Court

Answer 14

Controversy did not arise from the contact with the forum state for 592 of the plaintiffs

Question 15

Specific Jursdiction

Ford Motor v. Montana 8th Judicial

Answer 15

Ford had advertisments, service centers, etc. to show that there were sufficient contacts and that the controversy was sufficiently related to those contacts to meet the burden

Rule 4(k)(1)

Question 16

General Jurisdiction

Daimler v. Bauman

Answer 16

State of incorporations and PPOB (systematic and continuous enough to make the company “at home” in the forum state)

4(k)(1)

Question 17

In Rem

Shaffer v. Heitner

Answer 17

Even In Rem personal jurisdiction must satisfy the International Shoe Test - stock was held in Delaware, but CEO did not have contacts in Delaware and controversy did not arise from that contact

Question 18

“Tag” Jurisdiciton

Burnham v. Superior Court

Answer 18

Split court - but may ask if the defendant “availed” himself of benefits provided by the state to determine if service is proper

Question 19

Attacks on Personal Jurisdiction

Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association

Answer 19

Defendant made special appearance to contest pjx, court ruled against motion. Defendant then brough suit in their home state arguing that pjx was improper. Court held that issue had been litigated and could not be relitigated.