Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
40Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Law - Civil Procedure Notes

Law - Civil Procedure Notes

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 2,673 |Likes:
Published by KJ
Law school notes
Law school notes

More info:

Published by: KJ on Sep 10, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Civil Procedure
Personal Jurisdiction
Minimum Contacts Rule
: A forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if there aresufficient minimum contacts between the defendant and state, and the suit would comport with notions of fair play and substantial justice.
 International Shoe Co. v. Washington
.
Three prong test
:1. Did the D
 purposefully direct 
his activities towards the forum2. Did claims arise out of D’s forum-related conduct (
relatedness
)3. Would jurisdiction be reasonable— 
 fair play/substantial justice
-Defendant’s contacts must be such that it could reasonably expect to be haled into court in the forumstate based on its activities in forum and using protection of state laws.
Woodson
.Contract Claim: defendant’s contract must establish a
 substantial connection
and continuous obligationwith the forum state in order for court to find purposeful direction towards state.
 Burger King v. Rudzewicz 
Unilateral rule: A party’s unilateral acts in a forum that the defendant cannot control will not make the Dresponsible for the party’s claim.Foreseeability is not enough; defendant must be able to insure itself against liability.
 Hanson, Woodson
-A single, meaningful contact between the defendant and forum may constitute purposeful direction if  jurisdiction would be reasonable.
McGee
.Stream of commerce plus: Defendant must purposefully direct a product towards a forum state when placing it in the stream of commerce to
purposeful direction. (Brennan view)
 Asahi
caseOrdinary stream of commerce: If defendant places product in stream of commerce, it can reasonablyexpect to be haled into court anywhere the product goes downstream. (O’Connor view)
Fair play factors
:-Forum state’s interest in claim-Plaintiff’s interest in forum and location of evidence-Inconvenience to defendant-Multiple states’ interest in resolution-Improvement of social policy among statesIntentional Torts:
Calder Effects Test
:-purposeful direction towards the forum state-brunt of harm suffered in forum-focal point of story was in the forum-Fairness of jurisdiction
1
 
Internet contact
: For commerce, a passive website (without interactivity) that simply posts informationdoes not purposefully connect with a specific forum. Interactive websites exchanging information withforum residents may be enough for MC.
 Zippo
case.-Calder effects test is used for intentional torts or defamation suits.
General Jurisdiction
: GJ is the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction even if there is no connection between the claims and the forum state. It is based on the
continuous and systematic
contact between thedefendant and the forum state.-Fair play factors are not so important for GJ.-Defendant corporation must be acting like a “local player”.
Specific Jurisdiction
: Jurisdiction where the party’s claims are based on minimum contacts between thedefendant and the forum state.
 Jurisdiction over Property
 In rem
jurisdiction: Court seeks to affect the interest of persons over their property rather than impose personal liability on the defendants.
Rule
: Where the claim to the property itself is the source of the suit between parties, the state where the property is located may have
in rem
jurisdiction over the property.
Shaffer v. Heitner 
-The cause of action must be arise from the D’s forum-related conduct.
 Jurisdiction Based on Physical Presence
 Burnham v. Superior Court 
: Defendant was served with a CA court summons while visiting the state for  business and seeing his children. His contact was brief and he had no other contact with the forum state.
Rule
: If the defendant voluntarily traveled to the forum state and was served while visiting there, theforum state can exercise jurisdiction over the D.-Physical presence is one the continuing traditions of the American legal system that define the due process standard of fairness.
 Requirement of Notice & Opportunity to be Heard (Due Process)
Rule:
Notice must be sent out in a way that
reasonabl
y informs interested persons of the lawsuit taking place and it must allow them a chance to voice their opinions.-Newspaper notification didn’t meet this requirement. Mailing would meet it.
Mullane v. Central  Hanover Bank.
-The government simply needs to make an honest and reasonable effort to inform the defendant; it doesn’tmatter if the D actually receives the notice.
 Dusenberry
2
 
Rule
: Affected parties have a right to be heard and must be notified of the action against them.Opportunity to be heard must be given at a reasonable time so the party can respond.
 Fuentes v. Shevin
-Immediate seizure is allowed when necessary for general public interest; special need for prompt action;state must have strict control of force; govt. official must decide seizure.
Due Process test
:State action against D may not satisfy due process based on--1. Degree of harm to defendant’s interest from government action2. Risk of erroneous deprivation of property (especially if state could’ve taken more safeguards)3. Strength of gov’s interest, including burdens of litigation.
Mathews v. EldrigeGoldberg v. Kelly
: Welfare recipients sued NYC for terminating aid to them without a prior evidentiaryhearing (opportunity for them to be heard).
Rule
: Due process requires that the state provide an adequate hearing before it terminates welfare benefitsto the affected party. Welfare is considered a
right
which indigent persons need to subsist (life).A post-termination hearing does not meet due process.
Goldberg 
-
14
th
Amendment
focuses on protecting citizens’ right to life, liberty, and property. These cannot bedeprived without due process of law.
-
Due Process doesn’t require every indigent parent to be appointed counsel when parental rights are atstake. It only requires giving counsel to a poor person when he might be deprived of life or physicalliberty, i.e. in criminal cases.
 Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
 Diversity of Citizenship
Definition
: Federal courts may exercise DJ where parties on either side are from different states and thematter of the dispute is above $75,000.
“Complete Diversity” rule
: If any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant, there is nodiversity jurisdiction no matter how many parties are involved in the litigation.Important thing is the party’s last state of citizenship (where they resided and intended to remainindefinitely).
28 U.S.C. 1332
: a citizen of a certain State must be both a citizen of the U.S.
and
a domiciliary of thatState.
28 U.S.C. 1332 Rule
: District courts have jurisdiction when the matter of the dispute exceeds $75,000and is between (1) citizens of different states or (2) between citizens of a state and citizens of a foreigncountry.
28 U.S.C. Section 1332
. Redner v. Sanders
3

Activity (40)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Littleladyaims liked this
myles15 liked this
Jordan Blackburn liked this
Dayday Able liked this
Shon De Mwasingo liked this
Dayday Able liked this
Arolaine Lim liked this
Mica Rosier liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->