Civ Pro Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

Millikan v. Meyer

Question 2

Hypo: Out-of-state defendant served with process while visiting the forum.

Answer 2

Answer: Yes PJ
Case: Pennoyer v. Neff – physical presence at time of service = valid in personam jurisdiction.

Question 3

Hypo: Out-of-state driver causes accident in forum; state has statute appointing registrar as service agent.

Answer 3

Answer: Yes PJ
Case: Hess v. Pawloski – implied consent through forum activity (e.g., driving) allows PJ.

Question 4

Hypo: Company has systematic and continuous contacts with forum; claim arises from those contacts.

Answer 4

Answer: Yes PJ
Case: International Shoe – minimum contacts + fairness = constitutional PJ.

Question 5

Hypo: Company sold one life insurance policy into the forum; dispute arose from that policy.

Answer 5

Answer: Yes PJ
Case: McGee v. International Life – single purposeful contact related to claim = sufficient.

Question 6

Hypo: Car distributor does not sell or advertise in forum; vehicle ends up there in resale; injury occurs.

Answer 6

Answer: No PJ
Case: WWVW – mere foreseeability of product ending up in forum ≠ purposeful availment.

Question 7

Hypo: Foreign component part sold to foreign manufacturer; no targeting of forum; injury in forum.

Answer 7

Answer: No PJ
Case: Asahi – stream-of-commerce alone not enough; no purposeful targeting.

Question 8

Hypo: Foreign manufacturer sells through U.S. distributor without targeting any state; product injures in forum.

Answer 8

Answer: No PJ
Case: J. McIntyre – no specific targeting of forum; no purposeful availment.

Question 9

Hypo: Auto company advertises, sells, and services products in forum; claim involves one of its cars.

Answer 9

Answer: Yes PJ
Case: Ford v. Montana – claim ‘relates to’ forum-directed activity even if product sold elsewhere.

Question 10

Hypo: Foreign subsidiary sells products globally; accident occurs abroad; parent sued in unrelated forum.

Answer 10

Answer: No PJ
Case: Goodyear – no general PJ over foreign subsidiary for unrelated claims.

Question 11

Hypo: Parent company has U.S. subsidiary doing business in forum; injury occurs abroad.

Answer 11

Answer: No PJ
Case: Daimler AG – general PJ requires company to be ‘at home’ (HQ or incorporation).

Question 12

Hypo: Company registers to do business in forum; statute deems that consent to jurisdiction.

Answer 12

Answer: Yes PJ
Case: Mallory – registration can constitute valid consent to general PJ.