This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
For a court to have personal jurisdiction-the court must have power over something Either the defendant themselves OR the defendant's property 3 types of power: In personam- Over defendant himself In Rem-Over property, sometimes you can't get in personam so you must revert to this Quasi In rem (this is now all but dead approach) Can the court have power? 2 things: Due process sets the outer boundaries to how far court can go with jurisdiction: Anything that falls in the boundaries are entitled to full faith and credit Anything outside the boundaries has no power. State must have statute that allows personal jurisdiction in the particular case--they can give less power. Cases and Law definitions that result: A: In Personam Jurisdiction (power over defendant) General-Defendant can be sued in this forum on claim arising anywhere in world. Specific- Defendant being sued on claim that arose in the forum. 1; Constitutional Limit-How big is the due process circle. Looking at -Each case gives a tool that we use today. Pennoyer V Neff-All about power. State has power over everything inside its boundaries. Traditional Bases on In personam Jurisdiction Defendant(or agent) served with process in the forum-gives general jurisdiction Defendant is domiciled in the forum-gives general Defendant consents-You can always consent to jurisdiction. Hard to get jurisdiction because you had to serve instateMobil society makes hard Hess V Pawloski -Expands jurisdiction (this is specific jurisdiction) (not a class case) Hess gets in a wreck in another state(mass). Mass had a statute, none resident motorist act-if you drive a motor vehicle in the state, then you have made state official as your agent for process (every state has this now). All they had to do was serve state agent, and mail a copy to Hess. This jurisdiction was upheld. Consistent with Pennoyer- Implied consent, and agent was therefore properly served.
Defendant solicited the contract to CA 2.International Shoe. -Hard. Foreseeable is relevant-but not that product would get there. must avail of the forum WW Volkswagen (1980) No jurisdiction Buy car. Flexible. Seems to have 2 parts-Min contacts and Fairness 4. The magic phrase. Nowhere does it purport to overrule Pennoyer (seemingly alternative) Mcgee Txcompany sells one contract in CA Stresses 3 things: 1. Sued 4 deferent and clearly had jurisdiction over manufacturer and Importer. This Test is crap! No idea what the words mean.Due process case the same. Clear that you can serve process outside the forum 3. moves to FL.Relatedness-Plaintiffs claim arose from the contact with the forum (helps make up for contact amount) Hanson V Denckla (1958. rear ended in OLK. Did Fl have Jurisdiction over DE bank-NO No jurisdiction because the defendant had no purposeful availment.Such minimum contacts with the forum. Court says no to the latter because there was no contact--they did not avail themselves to OLKUnilateral act by somebody else. 1. Defendants are 2 lil guys up in Mich.New formula that was not expanding states powers. the suits seem foreseeable. Went to court over regional distributor and seaway motors. if foreseeable product would get there. To have a contact under I'Shoe. Calder V Jones (1984) You don't have to set foot in the forum Article written in FL but you caused an effect in the forum state (Cause an Effect) Article Aimed at CA Effects felt in CA Burger King (1985) Contract case. Stressed forum states interest 3. move toward AZ.finally court says no jurisdiction) Trust fund with DE bank.leads to expansion 2. 4 important things about BK 1: Court makes it clear I'Shoe has 2 parts (contact and Fairness) . so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. but that the defendant would get sued in this forum.
gives general jurisdiction.Parties financial position not relevant). If Values blow up in CDE? We have no lawjustices split 4 to 4. Has nothing to do with CA. Specific could have been argued but was not for some ill fated reason (They are making purposeful use of services in TX.Need Brennan Plus Intent or purpose to serve CDE.In'shoe left this open to exist alongside Brennan. not enough contact. Bought equipment-Purchases and related training trips on sufficient standing alone Sent Employees there to train-Not sufficient standing alone Perhaps boils down to purchases and not wanting to make this enough to drag someone into court and ruin International biz. Reason historical pedigree (Moldy old rule). Some could not be(unknowingly in state. Ashihi (1987) Stream of Commerce case Stream of commerce-Manufacture valves in state A and sell to B and it sells final product in C D and E. CEO's one trip not continuous and systematic Checks did not mater--it was not controlled in contract. This would be a relevant contact here. O'Conner. Burnham( 1990) NJ defendant served with process in CA. You must therefore know both approaches Approaches Brennan.2: You must have relevant contact before fairness become relevant (no relevant contact must be met) 3: Contact was very easy-Reached out to FL entity. There is no Law ON STREAM of Commerce! Helicopteros General Jurisdiction case. So they are over the threshold of specific jurisdiction). Clearly purposeful availment 4: Burden is on the defendant to show Forum is unconstitutional. General denied. only way it works is if CA has general jurisdiction. against will. ect MIGHT not be) . Is being served in the forum enough under Pennoyer? Are the traditional bases still good by themselves? No answer given-4-4 Split Scalia approach.Presence when served is enough.Generally sufficient.Is a contact if you put product into the stream and reasonably anticipate it will get to CDE. (show so gravely difficult and inconvenient that you are at a severe disadvantage in the litigation--almost impossible to make that showing.
Exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the united states constitution and laws . The defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any states courts of general jurisdiction: and B.Inet such a game changer perhaps we are looking at I shoe being rethought in the future. Revell V Lidov 4th 2002 Article in Columbia BB. then there is an argument that this is enough Pennoyer says all you have to do is attach at the outset. Has a flavor of purposeful availment-the focal point.They all agreed that CA had general Jurisdiction. that was enough. Corporations Immunity to this. This has all but been done away with now as you must meet I shoe so you would go for In Personam unless you were trying to skirt notice laws. They did not attach the land at the outset though. but that alone is not enough. Tools: Some still refer to Zippo continuum-Completely passive never enough(even though could be advertising). Highly interactive sufficient of IPJ(this is losing steam. Keeton/Calder applications: Calder test-State needs to be focal point of statements and harmful effects.BS reasoning. This goes back to Pennoyer: He could not get to the defendant over a contract. B: In Rem and Quasi In Rem .Over the defendants property. TX suit. With In Rem. the suit itself is about who owns the property or about directly In Quasi In Rem. Brennan thinks because he was there 3 days. Very strange ruling that throws Pennoyer right back into the mix. For a claim that arises under federal law. we know who owns the property but want to use to get at another issue. serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: A. don t rely at all). Copyright Law. Some World Wide Provisions as well. Federal claim outside state-court jurisdiction. But the defendant must meet I'shoe C: Federal Court and Personal Jurisdiction: Territorial limits over federal district court Limit as that state court across the street Exception to above general rule: When Authorized by Fed Statute Patent law. What we do with today: If its In Rem and land.things specifically for Fed. You have to attach the land at the outset-ruling of the court. about DC. Shafer -Changes: Must attach at outset.
Think Pennoyer and within US.(defendant not subject to jurisdiction that has enough contact that state court could not use long arm--rare for 4k2 case because states power so broad). . Also remember must come under FEDERAL LAW. *The SC has not resolved Federal limits on territory. Think also I shoe and Min Contacts.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.