Civ Pro Case Summaries

Shaffer v. Heitner (1977):

i. Court held no personal jurisdiction through seizure of stocks
because lack of minimum contacts standard from in personam.
Heitner was owner of one share in Greyhound Corp, instituted a
shareholders derivative suit against Greyhound Corp and 28
members of Geryhounds board of directors and officers. Heitner
brought suit in Delaware where was Greyhound Incorporated. Also
filed motion for an order to sequester approx. 82,000 shares of
Greyhound stock owned by 21 of the defendants. Court ruled no
personal jurisdiction through seizure of stocks. Absent long arm
from Delaware, Board of Directors must have minimum
contacts with Delaware to be hailed to court.
1. Note: Delaware could have long arm that says if you are on
Board of Directors of incorporate in our state, you can be
sued in our state. (Undecided if this is consitutional?).DE
changed their law afterward that says you must appoint
agent or rep to consent to jurisdiction.
Crocker v. Hilton Barbados(1992)
i. Court says no Personal Jurisdiction: Woman tries to sue
Hilton Barbados in Massachusetts for their negligently secured
hotel, which led to her rape in their hotel in Barbados. Cites the
Massachusetts long arm statue that says Mass courts may
exercise personal jurisdiction over persons transacting any
business in Mass. Business being advertisements, brochures,
soliciting business through travel agency.
i. Held: although she experienced her emotional distress in
Mass. , the rape itself did not arise from the business Hilton
transacted in Massachusettes. Out of state injuries
occurred in Barbados, even if she convalesced in Mass.
International Shoe v. Washington (1945): 11-13 Salesman in the state who rented display
spaces, earned commissions from people buying their goods in the state of Washington,
solicited business from residents in Washington
ii. Establishes min contacts
b. McGee v. International Insurance Life Co. (1957): Int. Insurance solicited and mailed
life insurance policy to Lowell (McGees son, she is collecting for him) in California
from Texas. Sent his bills to California and he sent his premiums back to Texas. Int.
Insurance contacts with California are those which the suit derived out of.
i. Sending and receiving bills counts as min. contacts. One
single contact counts
c. No Minimum Contacts: Hanson v. Deckla (1958): Mrs. Donner creates family trust
in Pennsylvania. Trust was incorporated in Delaware and Delaware bank was trustee.
Donner later moves to Florida where she dies. Agreement made in Delaware, Trust

d.

e.

f.

g.

did NO business in Florida, they did not avail themselves of business in Florida.
Unilateral activity of Donner (mailing payments to trust company) from Florida, not
trust to Florida: no evidence of profits made on the interactions with Donner in
Florida
i. Must purposefully avail yourself of privileges of conducting
activities within the forum state.
WWV v. Woodson (1980): Court rules no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs drive
defendants car into the state of Oklahoma and get into an accident there. local
distributor and retailer cant be hailed into court in OK because never did any
business in OK, shipped or sold any products into the state- lack of minimum
contacts.
i. Even if you can forsee your product being taken into a
market by plaintiff, does not mean you can be hailed to court
there. Its about directly or indirectly injecting your product
into stream of commerce. (Purposeful availment).
Keeton v. Hustler (1984): NH does have personal jurisdiction over Hustler. New York
resident sues Hustler (OH company) in NH where they distribute 1 million copies of
the magazine (only state left she can sue in because of statute of limitations). Keeton
sues Hustler for defamation of character.
i. Even if you arent a citizen of the state in which you bring the
suit, you can sue defendant there if they have enough
minimum contacts (selling 1 million copies is enough
contact).
ii. Note: Single Publication Rule: you bring your case once, in one
state on defamation claim and it applies to all the states in which
your reputation was damaged, so you can collect damages in
every state where the magazine/newspaper is distributed
Calder v. Jones (1984): Court says California has PJ over two authors. Jones sues
National Enquirer which is based in Florida and two of the authorities who came up
with story that libeled her in California court. California does have jurisdiction over
NE because they distribute lots of issues in California. Two authors say California has
no jurisdiction because they were just acting as mere employees.
i. Two authors reached out and targeted Jones with expressly
tortious acts aimed at California. They contacted people in
California for the story, they knew story would be tortious to
her in California- damage her reputation there.
i. Intentional, targeted, aimed
Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz (1985): Rudzewicz is senior partner at accounting
firm and MacShara decide to open Burger King franchise together. They applied to
Burger King district office in Birmingham Michigan in 78, application forwarded to
Burger King office in Miami, Florida. MacShara went to Florida for training, parties
began to disagree and had dispute and negotiated with local office and burger king
headquarters in Miami. Economy went bad and they could not pay Burger King
headquarters but kept the chain open. Burger King files suit in Florida federal court
for diversity AND to sue them for trademark infringement.

i. Federal Court has original jurisdiction over disputes arising

under trademark, copyright, patent 1338a
ii. Supreme Court held that defendant Rudzewicz purposefully
availed himself of the protections of forum state (Florida).
Defendants had substantial and continuing relationship
with Burger Kind and it is not a violation of due process.
Should have reasonably anticipated being summoned there
for a breach of contract.
i. Brennans reasonableness test in this case eventually became
Asahi fairness test
h. Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002): No Personal Jurisdiction. Pavlovich is a
student in Indiana who creates software that teaches you how to copy music, offers it
for free, not to sell. California music companies trying to sue him in California (more
sympathetic juries).
i. Pavlovich did not target DVDCTA like National Enquirer
reached out and targeted Jones. He is not trying to make a
profit, just for general knowledge. Not purposefully availing
himself of any states market because the info is just out
there.
ii. Note: Supreme Court has not made a ruling on Internet sites
being hailed into courts in certain states. Still up in the air who
can exercise personal jurisdiction over websites.
i. Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court (1986): Court split 4-4-1 on stream of
commerce theory. Man killed in motorcycle accident caused by faulty tire valve
made by Asahi a Japanese company, which they sold to Chen Shin Rubber,
Taiwanese Company. Man settled and left case and two foreign companies tried to
sue each other in California. They did not directly sell, put manufacturers into
argument.
i. California Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over two
foreign companies because it offends traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.
i. FPSJ- Burden on the defendant, interest of forum state,
plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief, judicial system interest in
obtaining efficient resolution, foreign defendant in foreign
system of law, no proof California more convenient no
California interest
ii. Asahi said for personal jurisdiction. Five considerations above
to look at, its not fair unless there was intent to serve the
market. Fairness is distinct from minimum contacts, would be
fair for them to defend a suit of minimum contacts in the US.
a. *McIntyre v. Nicastro (2011), pg. 124: Completely split court 4-4-1. Accident
severed four fingers off the right hand of Nicastro who was operating recycling
machine. British company manufactured the machine and sold it through exclusive
US distributor. Nicastro sues McIntyre the British company and their US distributor.
Only three machines even in New Jersey where man injured, but company marketed
in Las Vegas at tradeshows.

i. What do you do when foreign company solicits America as a

whole? Who has personal jurisdiction?
ii. 4 said yes on min contacts, but unfair to sue British company
in Ohio, 4 said no minimum contacts, 1 said dont need min
contacts b/c loose on fairness grounds
iii. Plurality- putting something into stream of commerce without
more like advertisement and service is not enough. Targeting
the US is different from doing business in New Jersey. Having
PHJ in US but not in a specific state, personal jurisdiction must
be done on state by state basis and not just the overall state.
i. Concurrence- looked at only the facts in the record, and they said
no advertising, absence of something more besides just
participating g in the stream of commerce is not enough. They
had just sporadic contact in NJ.
ii. Dissent- they purposefully availed themselves because they sold
the goods wherever possible. Should have forseen it going to NJ
because biggest scarp metal distributor. Personal jurisdiction is
individual rights thing, versus Kennedy who says submit to the
state sovereign.

General Jurisdiction
a. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (1952): Court upholds personal
jurisdiction over Benguet in Ohio. Foreign corporation originally from Philippines
was owned by American and during WWII temporarily stopped mining operations
and relocated to Ohio, doing basically all its admin. business out of there.
iii. Perkins stockholder claim did not arise out of Benguets
work in Ohio but was able to sue them there because they did
continuous and systematic business in Ohio during the war.
b. Bryant v. Finnish National Airline (1965): Court upholds personal jurisdiction for
over Finnish air for claim arising with baggage in France. They did conduct enough
business in New York to be sued there under general jurisdiction.
iv. Travel agency and Finnish air share an office and often times
Finnish air employees pick up phones and sell their own
tickets. They offer direct services to NY customers through
flight information or baggage claim. They advertise with
budget of $80,000. Sell to people directly.
c. Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall (1984): No general personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs
(estates of employees) try to sue defendant helicopter company in Texas after
helicopter crash killed employees in Peru.
v. Arguments for Personal Jurisdiction (better arg. For specific
jurisdiction?): Accident arose out of Helicopteros contacts with
Texas? 1. contract became effective, 2. bought 80% of
helicopters there, 3. trained pilots (if plane crashed from pilot

error this is good argument). 4. Spent 4 million dollars in

Texas, 5. Texas long arm statute says: if you do contract by
mail or recruit people to Texas then you have done business in
Texas.
vi. Note: whether general jurisdiction can be applied to
individuals is not decided.
d. Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown (2011): No general personal jurisdiction. Child
killed in France by faulty Goodyear tires made in Turkey and family tries to sue in
North Carolina where Goodyear USA is based. Company is Turkey is a subsidiary,
Goodyear Tire in NC will get off on substance. No turkey tires ever sold in NC, none
are designed in NC or marketed in NC.
vii. Of any tires there is sporadic sales of the Turkish tires to
North Carolina. What percentage of the overall sales were
actually sold to North Carolina? Dont have specific Turkish
tires in the US, this is a distant Turkish subsidiary, should
not be able to pierce corporate veil here. The court were to
grant general jurisdiction then any company could be
amenable wherever any branch of their products are sold.
viii. Must be at home? Or systematic and continuous still means
general jurisdiction?
e. Daimler: SC FINDS THAT DAIMLER (SUBSIDIARY OF MBUSA, AMENABLE IN CA)
IS NOT SUBJECT TO JURISDICITON IN CA BECAUSE IT IS NOT ESSENTIALLY AT
HOME THERE. IF A CORPORATION HAS TOO MANY HOMES, THEY CANNOT BE
AT HOME ANYWHERE.
a. SOTOMAYOR DISSENT: TOO BIG TO BE SUED.

Transitory jurisdiction
a.
Burnham v. Superior Court (1988): Court upholds personal
jurisdiction. Burnham served with summons in California while visiting
his kids there and wife serve him with process for California. Court held
that Cali has PJ.
i. Held: Notions of fair play and justice NOT offended for being
served in state on activities UNRELATED to pending divorce.
Nothing in past cases or Constitution say anything about
physical presence being insufficient to establish jurisdiction.