1. National Equipment Rental vs.

Szukhent

Facts:

Petitioner, a New York corporation, sued Respondents, residents of Michigan in New

York federal court for failure to make payments on equipment Respondents leased from
Petitioner. The lease designated one Florence Weinberg to be Respondents agent to
accept service of process on their behalf. Petitioner delivered the complaint and
summons to Weinberg, who promptly mailed the documents to Respondents.
Respondents moved to quash service of the summons and complaint on the grounds
that service was ineffective. The trial court granted the motion to quash. The Circuit
Court upheld, reasoning that the lease term did not create an agency relationship
between Respondents and Weinberg.

Issue.

Whether or not the term in the lease between Petitioner and Respondent created an
agency relationship between Respondents and the alleged agent such that the agent
could validly accept service of process on behalf of Respondents.

Held:

Yes. In order to have an “agent authorized by appointment” for purposes of service of

process, an individual can contractually designate an agent to accept service of process
within a certain state. If said agent promptly delivers the papers served to said
individual, then service is effective. The fact that the designated agent was not
personally known to the respondents at the time of her appointment did not invalidate
the agency.

2. International Shoe vs Washington

Facts.

International Shoe Co., Defendant, was a company based in Delaware with an office in
St. Louis, Missouri and maintains places of business in several states, other than
Washington. Defendant employed salesmen that resided in Washington to sell their
product in the state of Washington. Washington sued Defendant after Defendant failed
to make contributions to an unemployment compensation fund exacted by state
statutes. The notice of assessment was served upon Defendant’s salesperson and a
copy of the notice was mailed to Defendant. Defendant appeared specially, moving to
set aside the order that service upon the salesperson was proper service. Defendant
also argued that it did not “do business” in the state, that there was no agent upon
which service could be made, and that Defendant did not furnish employment within the
meaning of the statute.

Issue.

Whether or not the service of process upon Defendant’s salesman was sufficient notice

Ruling:

Yes. In order for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the
defendant must have such minimum contacts with the state so that exercising
jurisdiction over the defendant would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.” It is enough that appellant has established such contacts with the
state that the particular form of substituted service adopted there gives reasonable
assurance that the notice will be actual. Nor can we say that the mailing of the notice of
suit to appellant by registered mail at its home office was not reasonably calculated to
apprise appellant of the suit.

3. Perkins vs Benguet Consolidated

FACTS

Perkins, a non-resident of Ohio, filed two in personam cases in an Ohio court. Among
those he sued is Benguest Consolidated (“Benguet”), organized in the Philippines, to
collect an amount in dividends and damages she claimed to be due her as a
stockholder of Benguet.

Benguet has been carrying on in Ohio its general business. Its president, while engaged
in doing such business in Ohio, has been served with summons in this proceeding.
Benguet, for its part, sought to quash the summons served upon their president. The
courts have sustained the motions to quash.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States precludes Ohio from subjecting a foreign corporation to
the jurisdiction of its courts in this action in personam

RULING

No. Ohio is free to decline or take jurisdiction over the corporation. To begin with,
Benguet is a foreign corporation according to Ohio law. The Federal Constitution does
not compel Ohio to open its courts to such a case, even though Ohio permits a
complainant to maintain a proceeding in personam in its courts against a properly
served nonresident natural person to enforce a cause of action which does not arise out
of anything done within the State.

4. McGee vs International Life Ins

Facts:

International mailed a reinsurance certificate to Franklin in California, offering to insure

him according to the terms of the Empire policy. International had conducted no other
business in California except for this one policy. Franklin accepted the offer and paid
premiums from California until his death in 1950. When Franklin's mother tried to collect
on the policy, the insurance company refused to pay, claiming Franklin had committed
suicide. McGee brought suit in California, and sought to enforce it in Texas. The Texas
Court, however, refused to enforce the judgment by the California Court for the
collection of the proceeds of the life insurance policy.

ISSUE

Whether or not California can exercise jurisdiction over International, whose contacts
with that state are limited to a single act or contract.

RULING

Yes. A state may exercise jurisdiction over a party whose contacts with that state consist
of only a single act, provided that that act is what gave rise to the claim for which
jurisdiction is being sought, and was deliberately directed toward the state based on
"substantial connection" with California, particularly the facts that the contract was
delivered to McGee's son while he was a resident of California. International continued
to maintain a financial relationship with McGee's son by collecting his premium
payments, and that the policy holder was a resident of the state when he died.

5. Phil Sec Investment vs CA

FACTS

Ducat obtained two separate loans from Ayala and Philsec secured by shares of stock
owned by Ducat. In order to facilitate the payment of the loans, 1488 Inc. undertook the
obligation to pay. 1488 Inc. sold to Athona Holdings (“Athona”) a parcel of land in Texas
while Philsec and Ayala extended a $2.5M loan to Athona to partially cover the value of
the $2.8M lot. Athona executed a promissory note in favour of 1488 Inc. worth $.3M to
complete the payment for the lot. After all these transactions, Ducat was released of his
loan. Athona failed to pay the $.3M promissory note. 1488 Inc. sued Athona, Philsec
and Ayala for the payment of the $.3M. The case was filed in Texas. While the Texas
case was pending, Philsec filed a complaint to recover a sum of money with damages in
a Makati RTC against Ducat. Ducat, on the other hand, filed and was granted a MTD on
the basis of litis pendentia and forum non conveniens. The trial court also held that it
had no jurisdiction over 1488 Inc. because the action was neither in rem nor quasi in
rem, accompanied by the fact that the said defendant was a non-resident. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not foreign judgments constitute res judicata?)

2. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the case based on the principle of forum
non conveniens.

RULING

1. It depends. The foreign judgment cannot be given the effect of res judicata without
giving the adverse party an opportunity to impeach it on grounds stated in the rules of
court, to wit: “want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact.” In this jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as
distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie
evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the
contrary.

2. Yes. A Motion to Dismiss is limited to the grounds provided under the Rules of Court,
which does not include forum non conveniens. The propriety of dismissing a case based
on this principle requires a factual determination, hence, it is more properly considered
a matter of defense. In this case, the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely
on the basis of the pleadings filed by private respondents in connection with the motion
to dismiss. It failed to consider that Philsec is a domestic corporation and Ducat is a
Filipino, and that it was the extinguishment of the latter’s debt which was the object of
the transaction under litigation.

6. World wide Volkswagen Corp vs Woodson

Facts:

The Robinsons purchased an Audi automobile from Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. in New
York State. They sued the auto manufacturer and retailer Seaway and World-Wide in
Oklahoma for products liability suit after they became involved in an accident in
Oklahoma while driving to Arizona. Seaway and World-Wide made special apperances
for the purpose of opposing jurisdiction in Oklahoma

Issue.

Whether or not an Oklahoma court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-
resident automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor in a products liability suit, when
the defendants’ only connection with Oklahoma is the fact that an auto sold in New York
to New York residents became involved in an accident in Oklahoma.

Ruling.

No. The Oklahoma trial court may not exercise in personam jurisdiction over petitioners.
A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so
long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State.
Here, there is a total absence in the record of those affiliating circumstances that are a
necessary predicate to any exercise of state court jurisdiction.

7. Calder vs Jones

Facts:

Petitioners South is a reporter, and Petitioner Calder is president and an editor, of

Petitioner National Enquirer in Florida. South wrote an article and edited by Calder that
accused Respondent of a drinking problem. Respondent brought a suit for libel, and
South and Calder challenged California’s personal jurisdiction since neither had any
physical contacts with California.

Issue

Whether or not California has personal jurisdiction over South and Calder through their
targeting of Respondent with this article.

Ruling

Yes, California had personal jurisdiction over Petitioners. A state has personal
jurisdiction over any party whose actions intentionally reach another party in that state
and thus are the basis for the cause of action. The Court determined that Petitioners’
actions were intentionally aimed at a California resident, and the injuries suffered would
be in that state.
 8. Keeton vs Hustler Magazine

FACTS

Petitioner Keeton, a resident of New York, brought a libel suit against Respondent
magazine publisher, an Ohio corporation, in Federal District Court in New Hampshire,
alleging jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship. Keeton’s only connection with
New Hampshire is the circulation there of a magazine that she assists in producing.
Hustler Magazine’s contacts with New Hampshire consist of monthly sales of some
10,000 to 15,000 copies of its nationally published magazine.

ISSUE

Whether or not New Hampshire has jurisdiction

RULING

Yes. Hustler Magazine’s regular circulation of magazines in the forum State is sufficient
to support an assertion of jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the
magazine. The fact that Keeton has very limited contacts in New Hampshire does not
defeat jurisdiction, since a plaintiff is not required to have “minimum contacts” with the
forum State before that State is permitted to assert personal jurisdiction over a non-
resident defendant. There is no unfairness in calling Hustler Magazine to answer for the
contents of its national publication wherever a substantial number of copies are
regularly sold and distributed.

9. Asahi Metal Industry vs Superior Court

Facts

Petitioner Asahi manufactures tire valve assemblies in Japan and sells them to several
tire manufacturers, including Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co. (Cheng Shin). The sales
to Cheng Shin, sells throughout the world, including the United States. In 1979, a
product liability suit was brought in California Superior Court arising from a motorcycle
accident allegedly caused by defects in a tire manufactured by Cheng Shin, which in
turn filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnification from petitioner. Asahi contested
California's personal jurisdiction over Asahi, but the California courts found jurisdiction
based on Asahi's alleged awareness of the international distribution of its products.
Issue

Whether or not Asahi has minimum contacts with California for the exercise of personal
jurisdiction without violating the traditional notions of fair play.

Ruling

No. The Court finds that fair play would be violated because the plaintiff is not a
California resident, and thus California’s interests in the case are “diminished”.
California can enforce its interest in having safe products in its state indirectly by
applying pressure to direct suppliers of goods to California, who in turn will apply
commercial pressure to their suppliers.

10. Bensuan Restaurant Corporation vs Richard King

Facts.

Plaintiff Bensusan Restaurant Corporation (Plaintiff), the owner of the “Blue Note” jazz
club located in New York City, filed a complaint against Defendant Richard B. King, a
Missouri resident, who owned a small club since 1980 under the name “The Blue Note”
in Columbia, Missouri. Around 1993, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant demanding that he
cease and desist from operating under the name “The Blue Note” because Plaintiff
trademarked the name in 1985. Plaintiff also sought that Defendant be enjoined from
using the name “The Blue Note” on the latter’s website. The district court dismissed the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issue.

Whether or not a federal court has to look to the long arm state of the forum state to
determine whether personal jurisdiction exists in a case.

Ruling

Yes, a federal court must look to the long arm statute of the forum state to determine
personal jurisdiction. Thus, the court held that King's operation of the website was not
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of New York’ long-arm statute, and that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate the precepts of constitutional due
process. Significantly, the court found that the owner of the Missouri club was only trying
to attract local patrons by the club's operation of its website without the intention of
availing himself of the benefits of New York, and dismissed the action for lack of
personal jurisdiction
 11. Compuserve Inc vs Richard Patterson

Facts:

CompuServe provided computer information services to individual subscribers,

including access to computer software products and information resources through the
Internet. Patterson was a subscriber to CompuServe. He developed a shareware
software product to help people navigate through the Internet. The shareware was
advertised on CompuServe’s system. Patterson’s agreement with CompuServe
specifically chose OH law to control the agreement and disputes between the parties
regarding the agreement.

Issue:

Whether or not contacts, almost entirely electronic, are sufficient to establish the
minimum contacts needed for long-arm jurisdiction?.

Ruling:

Patterson’s combined contacts with OH and the quality of such contacts reached the
level necessary to demonstrate purposeful availment of the benefits and protections of
Ohio law. The court determined that he had reached out to OH to subscribe to
CompuServe, entered into a contract with CompuServe to market his shareware
product over the Internet, repeatedly interacted with CompuServe via file transfers, e-
mail, and other communications, and prompted the filing of this law suit through his own
threat to sue CompuServe.

12. Rush vs. Savchuk

Facts:

While a resident of Indiana, appellee Savchuk was injured in an accident in Indiana

while riding as a passenger in a car driven by appellant Rush, also an Indiana resident.
After moving to Minnesota, appellee commenced this action against Rush in a
Minnesota state court. As Rush had no contacts with Minnesota that would support in
personam jurisdiction, appellee attempted to obtain quasi in rem jurisdiction by
garnishing the contractual obligation of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
(State Farm) to defend and indemnify Rush in connection with such a suit. State Farm,
which does business in Minnesota, had insured the car, owned by Rush's father, under
a liability insurance policy issued in Indiana. Rush was personally served in Indiana.
Rush and State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the
defendant.
Issue:

Whether or not Minnesota courts can obtain jurisdiction over both Rush and State Farm
by virtue of a quasi in rem jurisdiction.

Ruling

No, a state may not constitutionally exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over a defendant
who has no forum contacts by attaching the contractual obligation of an insurer licensed
to do business in the state to defend and indemnify him in connection with the suit. A
State may exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant only if the defendant has
certain minimum contacts with the forum