You are on page 1of 4

I. PERSONALJURISDICTION A. GeneralPrinciples 1. Defined:Personaljurisdictionisthepowerofacourttoenterajudgmentthatbinds allpartiestothelawsuit.Concernisaboutthepoweroverthedefendant. *** B. HistoricalDevelopment *** C. ModernPersonalJurisdiction:SpecificJurisdiction 1. GeneralPrinciples *** 2. BasicFlowchart a. Statutory:Doesthestateslongarmstatuteallowforpersonaljurisdiction (limitedtoattractbusiness)? Ifno,STOP b. ConstitutionalQ:Doesthedueprocessclauseallowpersonaljurisdiction?

i) Didthedefendanthaveminimumcontactswiththeforumstate? (1) PurposefulAvailment/Foreseeability (2) Whatwasthequality/quantityofthecontacts?(factstofacts) ii) Wouldpersonaljurisdictionbereasonable(fairplay&substantial justice)? iii) Doesthecourthavespecificjurisdictionorgeneraljurisdiction? (1) General:someonewholivesinthestateorispresentinthe state,stateofincorporation,principleplaceofbusiness (considerthecontinuumbetweengeneralandspecific) c. Whattypeofcase? i) Internet ii) StreamofCommerce (1) Brennan:Foreseeabilityisenough. (2) OConnor:Foreseeabilityisnotenoughpurposefulavailment iii) Contract,Tort,Etc. 3. MinimumContacts:Acourthaspersonaljurisdictionoveran entity iftheentity hassuch minimumcontactswiththestatethatrequiringtheentitytodefenda lawsuitinthatstatewouldnotoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantial justice. InternationalShoe,p.42(relyingondoingbusinessasaproxyfor presence Kulkoextendedtoindividuals). a. InternationalShoe i) ContinuousandSystematicContacts:marketingtocustomers, displayingproducts,sellingtoresidents,payingresidents,state interestintheissue,rentingspace,flowofgoods.N15 ii) LackofContacts:salesmadeinanotherstate,nopermanentbase, incorporatedandmainofficeinanotherstate,payingindependent contractors(commissions),onlyonesetofproductinthestate.N15

iii) Justification:Thecompanyisbenefitingfromthelawsofthestate,so itshouldbesubjecttosuitforcertainthingsreciprocityargument. b. Result:ThecourtshiftsfromlookingatDspresenceorabsencetothe relationshipbetweenDandtheforum.Courtswillconsiderthequalityand natureofthecontacts,reasonableexpectation,burdenoflitigating,whether thesuitarisesoutofthecontacts.N15,44 4. OtherCasesApplyingMinimumContacts a. McGee,p.50:CAresidentboughtaninsurancepolicyfromAZcompany policywassoldtoTXcompany.TXcompanysentanewpolicytoCACA residentcontinuedsendingpayments.CAcourtshadpersonaljurisdiction overTXcompany.Personaljurisdictionbasedonasingleact. b. Hanson,p.51:PAresidentconstructedtrustinDEPAresidentmovedtoFL. FLcourtdoesnothavepersonaljurisdictionovertheDEbankbecauseitwas theunilateralactoftheplaintiff thatcreatedtheconnectionbetweenDEand FL.Dmustpurposefullyavail itselfofconductingactivitiesinforumstate. c. Gray,p.52(STATECOURT):ILresidentsuedOHcompanyfornegligently constructingavalveusedinawaterheatermadebyPAcompany.OH companyhadneverdonebusinessinIL.ILcourthadpersonaljurisdiction becauseOHcompanycouldhavereasonablyanticipatedbeingcalledtoIL receivedbenefitfromsellingproductsnationally.

IntentionalFault:IntentionalTorts a. PrimaFacieCase: Intent,Impact,Harm i. TransferredIntent: 1. DidDintendtocommitonetortbutcommitanother? 2. DidDintendatortononepersonbutcommitoneagainstanother? ii. Battery: Intent,Contact/Act,Harm 1. Defined:Batteryistheintentionalinflictionofaharmfuloroffensivebodilycontact. 2. Intent a. Intentmodifiesthecontact/actfortrespassorytorts. Garratt b. Intentmodifiestheharm. VanCamp 3. Contact a. Contactisoffensiveifitwouldoffendthepersonaldignityofareasonableperson. Physicalharmisnotrequired. Snyder,Cohen b. ContactcanbesatisfiedifparticulatemattertouchesthePorifthecontactis withanextensionoftheperson. Leichtman c. Contactissatisfiedifapersonstartsachainofeventssubstantiallycertainto causecontact. Garratt d. Awarenessofcontactisnotrequired. 4. Harm a. Thewrongfulactisaharmfuloroffensivecontact. b. Anexpansiveviewofharm isadoptedtosatisfyourgoalofcompensation. c. Angerisnotalegallycognizableharm. iii. Assault: Intent,Apprehension,Harm 1. Defined:Assaultistheintenttoplaceanotherpersoninimminentapprehensionof harmfulofoffensivecontact. 2. Intent 3. Apprehension a. Theapprehensionmustbeimminent(likelytooccuratanysecondor immediately),andmerewordsareinsufficient. Cullison b. Conditionalthreatsarenotimminentandaremerewords. c. Fearisnotrequired. d. Apprehensionmustprecedethebatteryforassault. Koffman 4. Harm a. Thewrongfulactisawrongfultouchingofthemind. iv. FalseImprisonment: Intent,Confinement,Harm 1. Defined:FalseimprisonmentoccurswhenDintentionallyconfinesPwithinafixed boundary,andPswilltoleaveisovercomeinawaythatwouldovercomethewillofa reasonableperson. 2. Intent 3. Confinement a. Confinementmustbeinvoluntary,noconfinementifPisfreetoleaveatanytime. b. Mereexclusionisnotconfinement. c. MustbewithinaboundaryfixedbyDforanyappreciablelengthoftime. d. Pmustbeawareofconfinementoractuallyinjured. e. Dmustuseimplicitorexplicitthreatsofforce,butactualforcenotnecessary. f. Falseassertionoflegalauthority. g. HoldingvaluablegoodsofP. 4. Harm a. Wrongfulactistherestrictionoffreedom. v. IntentionalInflictionofEmotionalDistress: Intent,Extreme&Outrageous,Distress,Harm 1. Defined:Theintentionalorrecklessinfliction,byextremeoroutrageousconduct,of severeemotionalormentaldistress,evenintheabsenceofphysicalharm 2. Intent a. Intentcannotbetransfer,excepttosomeonewhoispresent. 3. ExtremeandOutrageousConduct a. Beyondtheboundsofdecency. b. Repeatedactionorcarriedoutovertime. 4. Distress a. Physicalormentaldistress,butmereinsultsarenotenoughtoestablishdistress. 5. Harm a. Thewrongfulactistheinflictionofsevereordebilitatingemotionaldistress.

Standing Issue:Whetheracourtcanhearacase.Whethertheinjurywouldbemoreappropriately addressedbyapoliticalbranchofgovernment. Rule:Whenthepartybringingthesuitisthedirectobjectofgovernmentaction,theyhavestanding. Lujanv.DefendersofWildlife(1992)p.11,p.97(nostandingbecauseinjurywasnotimminent) ArticleIII(Constitutional)Requirements:(1)Personalinjurythatisactualorimminent(2)Causation thatisfairlytraceabletoagovernmentaction(butforcause)and(3)Likelyredressedbyafavorable rulingoftheCourt. PrudentialRequirement: Allenv.Wright(1984)p.11,p.92(Bickelsuggeststhisisanexerciseofpassive virtues) (1)ZoneofInterest:Thecomplaintmustbewithinthezoneofinterestprotectedbythelawinvoked. (2)Injurycannotbetoogeneralized:Generalizedgrievancesaremoreappropriatelyaddressedbythe otherbranchesofgovernment.(Ex:suingasataxpayerorcitizen) (3)Notlitigatinganotherpersonsrights Allenv.Wright:Astigmaticinjuryistoogeneraltosatisfytheinjuryelement.Incasesof discrimination,apersonalshowingofbeingdeniedequaltreatmentisrequired.Assertingtherightto havethegovernmentactinaccordancewiththelawsisnotsufficienttograntstanding. Lujanv.DefendersofWildlife:CongresscannotabandontheArticleIIIrequirementofinjuryinfact throughtheenactmentofacitizensuitprovision.Congresscanbroadentheclassofinjuriesthatare recognized.Kennedyconcurrencearguesthatanexusmayexist,butCongressmustdefinemoreclearly thetypeofinjurythatisbeingprotected. SierraClubv.Mortonp.12:Specificpartiestothecasemusthavebeeninjured.Aestheticor environmentalinterestscansuffice. UnitedStatesv.SCRAPp.12:Aremoteinjurywillsometimesservetosatisfythestandingrequirement. CityofLAv.Lyonsp.12:Arealinjury,ratherthanathreatenedinjuryisrequired.Afutureinjurymust beimminent. Schlesingerp.12: Widelydiffuseharmdoesnotsatisfytheprudentialstandingrequirementofaninjury thatisnottoogeneralized.Generalizedinjuriesarebetterremediedbythepoliticalbranchesof government. UnitedStatesv.Richardsonp.12:Aninjurythatissufferedbyalltaxpayersistoogeneralized. OtherConstitutionalExperiences:Individualscantakecasesdirectlytothehighestcourt.Standing existsforthirdparties,especiallywhennooneelseiscomingforward.