Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
(26 cards)
specific jurisdiction
claim arises from defendant contact
general jursidcition
claim does not arise from defendant contact
quasi-in-rem I
suit arises from claim about property in state
quasi-in-rem II
property owned in state, but suit unrelated to property
implied consent
specific jurisdiction
Hess v. Palowski: nonresident motorists implicitly consent to appointment of instate agent
constructive presence
general jurisdiction
International shoe
Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he not present within the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that maintenance of the suit does not offend TNFPSJ.
Minimum contacts
Specific jurisdiction
Two-part test (Burger King)
Test: minimum contacts +TNFPSJ
Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice
- burden of litgation on defendant
- forum state interest
- plaintiff interest in redress
- interstate judicial interest
- Shared interest of several states
Purposeful availment (Intentional Tort)
Conduct must be aimed at forum state and harm must be felt in forum state; defendant created relationship with state
Keeton v. Hustler
Publisher who distributes magazines in a distant state may fairly be held accountable in that forum for damages resulting there from a defamatory store.
Calder v. Jones
An intentional tort aimed at forum state, even when defendant did not directly send magazines there, is enough for minimum contacts, because defendant’s conduct was felt in forum state
Walden v. Fiore
No jurisdiction because plaintiff cannot be the only link to the state, defendant did not expressly aim the conduct at state itself - defendant’s own acts need to create the relationship with the state where they aim the contact.
Contracts
There must be contact with the state to enter into a contract
Burger King v. Rudzewicz
Creation of a contract, and the contacts defendants created leading up to the contracts satisfied minimum contacts.
Minimum contacts is a two part test. First: Then: TNFPSJ
Stream of Commerce
The corporation myst have purposefully availed themselves to the forum state
World-Wide Volkswagon
No jurisdiction, because defendant conduct did not create a connection with the forum state. Only contact with forum state was through plaintiff.
Ashai Metal Indus. Co.
Plurality Opinion
Brennan: Asahi had purposefully availed itself to California; as long as the participant is aware that product is being marketed in the forum, they can be held responsible in that state.
O’Connor: not enough that Asahi placed the product into the stream of commerce and could reasonably anticipate it would be used in CA. There must be some additional conduct, by which defendant indicates “an intent or purpose to serve the forum.
J. McIntyre v. Nicastro
Kennedy: knowledge that the product would end up in the forum is not enough, must have intent to target the state
Breyer: a single sale of a product does not provide an adequate basis
Ginsburg: promoting and selling machines in U.S., purpoesfully availed itself.
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Did away with relate to test
No jurisdiction because claim did not arise from conduct.
But for test
“but for the defendant’s conduct, plaintiff would not have been injured”
Proximate cause
Whether defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff injury
Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Court may assert general jurisdiction where company’s affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in forum state
Daimler
“At home” for businesses = principal place of business and place of incorporation
“At home” for individuals = domicile
