Civ Pro Cases pt 1 Flashcards
Pennoyer v. Neff
Facts: Neff sued by Mitchell, defaulted then bought land in OR, sheriff seized land to pay for default and sold it to Pennoyer.
Significance:
In personam jurisdiction (tag) = power over persons.
A state has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident in personam. Served in state.
International Shoe v. Washington
Facts: Int was Delaware company with salesman in Washington. Washington charged Int for a Wash unemployment fund, Int refused to pay.
TEST: Defendant must have “minimum contacts with forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Significance:
General versus Specific JDX.
Sliding Scale test: deeper the contacts, less related claim can be. Not a yes/no test.
Contacts must make it reasonable for defendant to have to defend in that state.
Systematic and continuous contacts.
Relationship between the claim and the defendants contact with the state.
Milliken v. Meyer
Domicile/residency gives state power/JDX - substituted service accepted. You can be served in a different state for your state of domicile.
Defendant resided in Wyoming, served summons for Wyoming Court in Colorado - this is okay.
Hawkins v. Masters Farm
Facts: Mr. Creal died, fight over whether he was a citizen of Kansas (wife) or Missouri (old residence/family)
TEST:
Citizenship/Domicile Test: physical presence and intent to remain.
Rules:
Defendants filed a 12(b)(1): Motion to Dismiss for lack of Subject-Matter
28 USC 1332(c): Since Creal was dead, representative was considered a resident of where he was a resident.
Goodyear
Facts: Car crash with NC citizens in France, lawsuit in NC seeking damages from foreign subsidiaries.
Rule: FULL RULE CREATED BY DAIMLER.
Daimler
Facts: Mercedes Benz, Argentina war.
TEST: Daimler + Goodyear:
General JDX can be found in a third place.
Gen JDX in places where defendant has systematic and continuous contacts so proportionately significant that the defendant is essentially “at home” in forum state.
BMS
Facts: Drug company class action with some in state plaintiffs and some out of state plaintiffs.
General JDX not applicable here because BMS is not incorporated, “at home”, or have PPOB in CA. Specific JDX for CA residents applies.
Sotomayor “Parade of Horribles”: this will make it impossible for nationwide mass action. PJDX is about fairness and this is fair.
Rule:
Contacts with the forum state must relate to these plaintiffs claims.
Burnham
Facts: Served divorce papers in CA while visiting kids.
Rule: An individual is a moving bubble of general jurisdiction. When you have voluntarily entered a state, you are subject to gen JDX there.
Tag/transient JDX.
McGee v. International Life Insurance
Facts: McGee purchased insurance from CA - company in TX refused to pay (bc death was a suicide)
Significance: CA has specific JDX
Suit related to contacts with state. Mailing, correspondence.
State interest in providing redress for its citizens.
Hanson v. Denckla
Facts: Sisters suing over trust. Bank in Delaware, Mom was in FL when died.
TEST: ADDS TO INT SHOE:
Defendant must purposefully avail itself to the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits/privileges of its laws.
The mere unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant is not enough.
World Wide Volkswagen
Facts: Car sold in NY was driven to OK where it crashed. Brought suit in OK.
Hold:
Stream of commerce argument cannot be applied.
Defendant has to reasonably foresee that they could be sued in that forum state. Foreseeability alone that a product might end up somewhere is not sufficient.
Foreseeability = purposeful availment + minimum contacts
Defendant did not purposefully avail itself to the forum state.
The sale of a product must be more than simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve the forums market.
“Unilateral activity” does not satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state. Cannot be an isolated occurrence.
Co-State Sovereignty/Interstate federalism embodied in the Const:
Federal system divides exercisable power between national and state governments.
Must protect each states right to JDX, reaching too far implicates power of other states. PJ wants to ensure that each state retains its respective power.
Is there another state that has an interest in hearing this? States are coequal sovereigns.
McIntyre v. Nicastro
Manufacturer sold to distributor, machine found its way to NJ, guy injured hand.
Hold:
Defendant must purposefully avail itself to that forum state - not just the US.
It is not enough that an item found its way into a state, you must intend for it to go there.
Ford
Facts: Ford sold cars to two people in one state, they drove the cars to other states. Plaintiffs residents of forum states and were injured in forum states. In those states, Ford still sold and marketed cars.
Hold:
The suit must arise out of OR relate to (NOT DIRECTLY CAUSE) defendants contacts with the forum.
Interstate Federalism supports jdx over these suits, states where accidents took place have significant interest.
Very clear purposeful availment with these forums.
Ford can reasonably foresee that they could be sued here.
Internet/Tort Test
Zippo Test: A spectrum of interactivity.
PJDX determined by examining the interactivity and commercial nature of the website.
Purposeful availment.
Calder Test:
Intentional Act.
Expressly aimed at forum state.
Caused harm that was felt, and the defendant knew it would be felt.
Mallory
Facts: Railroad. Penn state law requires businesses to register and consent to suit in order to do business in state.
Hold: A state can have this provision. A company is subject to suit in a state if they agreed to it.
