Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
What are two important things to remember when answering Personal Jurisdiction questions?
- Always bring up the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.
- Always look at the long-arm statute of the state.
What is General Personal Jurisdiction?
General Jurisdiction is when the party has jurisdiction over the parties for anything done anywhere in the World.
What is Specific Personal Jurisdiction?
Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the parties only relating to litigation arising out of their minimum contacts with the state that do not offend traditional notions of fair play.
How is General Personal Jurisdiction established for Natural Persons?
General Personal Jurisdiction is established for Natural Persons under the traditional basis of service established in Pennoyer v. Neff.
What are the Traditional Basis of Service in Pennoyer v. Neff?
- Personal Service: Service directly to the defendant (most recently upheld by Burnham v. Superior Court).
- Substituted Service: Service to the defendant’s residence to a person of reasonable age and mindset.
- Agent Service: Service to the defendant’s agent who is able to receive service on behalf of the defendant.
- Consent: The defendant can consent to personal jurisdiction.
How is General Personal Jurisdiction established for Corporations?
- Where a corporation is at-home (Daimler AG v. Bauman).
- Where a corporation consents to general jurisdiction as a condition of doing business (Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.)
Where is a corporation at-home?
- Where the corporation is incorporated.
- Where the corporation maintains its principal place of business.
Where is the principal place of business of a corporation?
Principal place of business has been determined by the Ninth Circuit as where the amount of activity is “significantly larger” or “substantially predominates” but if no such state exists, then the corporation’s principal place of business is at the “nerve center” where the majority of its executive and administrative functions occur (Hertz Corp. v. Friend)
What is the Minimum Contacts Test?
Does the company have the sufficient minimum contacts necessary to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, does the litigation arise out of or relate to the contacts, AND did the company purposefully avail itself of the forum state (International Shoe Co. v. Washington)?
Why was the defendant in McGee v. International Life Insurance held to have sufficient minimum contacts with California for California to have Specific Personal Jurisdiction?
The defendant in McGee was held to have sufficient minimum contacts because it reached out to McGee in California to sell him life insurance and thus purposefully availed itself of California.
Why was the defendant in Hanson v. Denckla not held to have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida for Florida to have Specific Personal Jurisdiction?
The defendant in Hanson was not held to have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida where the suit was filed, because the defendant reached out to the decedent in Delaware, not Florida, and thus did not purposefully avail itself of Florida.
Why were the defendants in Shaffer v. Heitner not held to have sufficient minimum contacts with Delaware for Delaware to have Specific Personal Jurisdiction?
The defendants in Shaffer were not held to have the sufficient minimum contacts with Delaware where the quasi in rem suit was filed against their property, because even though they were corporate officers and directors of a Delaware corporation, they had not purposefully availed themselves of Delaware.
Why were the defendants in World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson not held to have the sufficient minimum contacts with Oklahoma for Oklahoma to have Specific Personal Jurisdiction?
The defendants in World-Wide Volkswagen were not held to have the sufficient minimum contacts with Oklahoma, because they did not purposefully avail themselves of Oklahoma. Their only contacts with Oklahoma were through the actions of a third party (the plaintiffs driving the car they purchased to Oklahoma).
Why was the defendant in Walden v. Fiore not held to have sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada for Nevada to have Specific Personal Jurisdiction?
The defendant in Walden was not held to have the sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada because the defendant’s sole contact with the forum state was knowledge that the defendant’s tortious conduct committed outside the forum state had an effect on the plaintiff in that state.
Why was the defendant in Burger King v. Rudzewicz held to have had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida for Florida to have Specific Personal Jurisdiction?
The defendant in Burger King was held to have the sufficient minimum contacts with Florida, because of the contacts that they were going to have upon entering into the agreement and because the burden is irrelevant unless it would be “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [a party] will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.”
