PJx Flashcards
Pennoyer v. Neff
Facts
Neff hired Mitchell for legal work. Neff failed to pay, Mitchell sued in OR state court. Published notice of summons, sold land to satisfy judgement (to Pennoyer). Neff sued Pennoyer.
Pennoyer v. Neff
Rule
Under the Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless she voluntarily appears in the court, is found within the state, resides in the state, or has property in the state that the court has attached.
Pennoyer v. Neff
Year + Court + Opinion(s)
1877 - US SupC
Justice Field
JDx over Neff’s property was improper
International Shoe v. Washington
Facts
Shoe - DW corp w PPB in MS
Served notice for failure to pay UE tax. Moved to dismiss on lack of PJx
International Shoe v. Washington
Rule
For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a court’s in personam jurisdiction, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
International Shoe v. Washington
Year + Court + Opinion(s)
1945 - SupC Justice Stone - OOC Min contacts + FPSJ rule Appropriate here to extend SPJx to Shoe Justice Black - DO States should have right to jdx unfettered by min contacts
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Facts
Robinsons bought a car in NY, accident in , Mrs. + children badly burned. World-wide contested SPJx
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Rule
Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state.
“reasonable anticipation” is required
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Year + Court + Opinion(s)
1980 - SupC Justice White - OOC SPJx inappropriate, Volkswagen had no min contacts w OK Brennan - DO FPSJ no longer req min contacts
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
Facts
Defendants bought BK franchise, failed to make payments on 20 yr contract. Defendants contested choice-of-law provision req FL PJx
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
Rule
When determining if a defendant satisfies the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction, the court must look to the purposefully directed activities of the defendant toward the forum state and whether the harms arising out of or relating to those activities are the cause of the litigation.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
Year + Court + Opinion(s)
1985 - SupC Brennan OOC min contacts -> FPSJ Choice-of-law = fair warning of FL PJx. SPJx will be extended to defendants Stevens DO choice-of-law provision alone =/= SPJx
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
Facts
Plaintiff injured, his wife killed, faulty tire. Sued Cheng Shin Rubber in CA state court. Cheng Shin filed cross-complaint for indemnification from Asahi. Asahi moved to quash for lack of SPJx. Asahi made valves in Japan, incorporated by Cheng Shin among others.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
Rule
Exercising personal jurisdiction over an alien defendant is unreasonable and unfair if the burden on the alien defendant from being required to defend itself in a foreign court outweighs the plaintiff’s and forum’s interests in the forum state’s assertion of jurisdiction.
Evenly disputed: stream of commerce as standalone test
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
Year + Court + Opinion(s)
1987 SupC
Holding - SPJx can’t be extended to Asahi.
O’Connor PLO
Stream of commerce =/= standalone test. Factors test. Burden to Asahi of foreign litigation is unfair, no min contacts
Brennan Concurrence PLO
Stream of commerce CAN = standalone test
