Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

specific jurisdiction

Answer 1

claim arises from defendant contact

Question 2

general jursidcition

Answer 2

claim does not arise from defendant contact

Question 3

quasi-in-rem I

Answer 3

suit arises from claim about property in state

Question 4

quasi-in-rem II

Answer 4

property owned in state, but suit unrelated to property

Question 5

implied consent

Answer 5

specific jurisdiction

Hess v. Palowski: nonresident motorists implicitly consent to appointment of instate agent

Question 6

constructive presence

Answer 6

general jurisdiction

Question 7

International shoe

Answer 7

Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he not present within the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that maintenance of the suit does not offend TNFPSJ.

Question 8

Minimum contacts

Answer 8

Specific jurisdiction
Two-part test (Burger King)
Test: minimum contacts +TNFPSJ

Question 9

Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice

Answer 9

1. burden of litgation on defendant
2. forum state interest
3. plaintiff interest in redress
4. interstate judicial interest
5. Shared interest of several states

Question 10

Purposeful availment (Intentional Tort)

Answer 10

Conduct must be aimed at forum state and harm must be felt in forum state; defendant created relationship with state

Question 11

Keeton v. Hustler

Answer 11

Publisher who distributes magazines in a distant state may fairly be held accountable in that forum for damages resulting there from a defamatory store.

Question 12

Calder v. Jones

Answer 12

An intentional tort aimed at forum state, even when defendant did not directly send magazines there, is enough for minimum contacts, because defendant’s conduct was felt in forum state

Question 13

Walden v. Fiore

Answer 13

No jurisdiction because plaintiff cannot be the only link to the state, defendant did not expressly aim the conduct at state itself - defendant’s own acts need to create the relationship with the state where they aim the contact.

Question 14

Contracts

Answer 14

There must be contact with the state to enter into a contract

Question 15

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Answer 15

Creation of a contract, and the contacts defendants created leading up to the contracts satisfied minimum contacts.
Minimum contacts is a two part test. First: Then: TNFPSJ

Question 16

Stream of Commerce

Answer 16

The corporation myst have purposefully availed themselves to the forum state

Question 17

World-Wide Volkswagon

Answer 17

No jurisdiction, because defendant conduct did not create a connection with the forum state. Only contact with forum state was through plaintiff.

Question 18

Ashai Metal Indus. Co.

Answer 18

Plurality Opinion
Brennan: Asahi had purposefully availed itself to California; as long as the participant is aware that product is being marketed in the forum, they can be held responsible in that state.

O’Connor: not enough that Asahi placed the product into the stream of commerce and could reasonably anticipate it would be used in CA. There must be some additional conduct, by which defendant indicates “an intent or purpose to serve the forum.

Question 19

J. McIntyre v. Nicastro

Answer 19

Kennedy: knowledge that the product would end up in the forum is not enough, must have intent to target the state

Breyer: a single sale of a product does not provide an adequate basis

Ginsburg: promoting and selling machines in U.S., purpoesfully availed itself.

Question 20

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Answer 20

Did away with relate to test

No jurisdiction because claim did not arise from conduct.

Question 21

But for test

Answer 21

“but for the defendant’s conduct, plaintiff would not have been injured”

Question 22

Proximate cause

Answer 22

Whether defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff injury

Question 23

Goodyear Dunlop Tires

Answer 23

Court may assert general jurisdiction where company’s affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in forum state

Question 24

Daimler

Answer 24

“At home” for businesses = principal place of business and place of incorporation

“At home” for individuals = domicile

Question 25

Burnham v. Superior Court of CA

Answer 25

CA has jurisdiction, but plurality opinion.

Scalia: physical presence still counts, contacts analysis would say no

Brennan: Contacts analysis

Question 26

McGee v. International Life Ins. Co

Answer 26

suit based on a contract mailed from Texas to California. Sending the contract through the mail to the forum state satisfies minimum contacts.