Pg 3

Question 1

What is involved in the basis element for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 1

There must be a basis for having jurisdiction over the person. This can come from traditional bases or minimum contacts

Question 2

On an essay when you’re discussing basis for personal jurisdiction, what should you talk about?

Answer 2

Always address traditional and minimum contacts to show that you understand both

Question 3

What is involved in having a traditional basis for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 3

This can come from:
– being a citizen of the state or domiciled there
– consenting to suit there
– being present in the state or being served in the state
– waiver
– an agent
– owning property in the state
– causing injury in the state

Question 4

What is tagging?

Answer 4

Being present in a state or being served in the state

Question 5

What does In Rem or Quasi In Rem mean?

Answer 5

The person owns property in the state

Question 6

If any of the possible traditional bases for personal jurisdiction are present, what happens?

Answer 6

There’s no need to resort to minimum contacts, but always discuss both on an essay if there’s any possible argument for it

Question 7

When is the date of citizenship determined for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 7

On the date that the suit is instituted.

Question 8

In order for the traditional basis of being a citizen or domiciled in the state to count for personal jurisdiction, what is required?

Answer 8

The person must be a US citizen and a domiciliary of the state. This means the state must be the place of his true fixed permanent home where he intends to return

Question 9

How do you change your domiciled state?

Answer 9

You must take up residence in a different place and intend to remain there

Question 10

If a person is domiciled in one state, can he be sued in that state even if he is not present at the time of suit?

Answer 10

Yes, under the traditional basis of being a citizen of or domiciled in a state for personal jurisdiction

Question 11

How can you consent to personal jurisdiction in a state?

Answer 11

• expressly: The defendant can knowingly and voluntarily expressly agree in contract to a forum selection clause that relinquishes his right to not be sued there, or
• impliedly: The defendant can consent to suit there by doing something such as driving on the roads of that state

Question 12

What is involved in the traditional basis for personal jurisdiction of being present in the state?

Answer 12

This is called tagging or transient presence. If the person or his property is present in the state’s territory when he is served, that is enough to have a traditional basis for personal jurisdiction.

Question 13

When tagging is at issue, does the length of time that the person was in the state matter?

Answer 13

No. Anyone that comes into the state should expect to be sued there.

Question 14

If you are on a flight and you are served in a state’s airspace, does that count as a traditional basis for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 14

Yes, that makes you amenable to suit in that state

Question 15

How can you get personal jurisdiction over someone through the traditional basis of agent?

Answer 15

If the person has appointed an agent in that state, it is fine

Question 16

What is involved with the traditional basis for personal jurisdiction for in rem or quasi in rem?

Answer 16

This deals with property.
– In Rem: the court exercises power over the property that the defendant owns in the state and it gives the court personal jurisdiction over the defendant as it relates to his property. The suit is over the property interest the defendant has in the forum state
– quasi in rem: the subject matter can go beyond property. Jurisdiction comes from the defendant owning property in the forum state, but the claims in the suit can go beyond that interest in property. The catch is that if the court finds against the defendant for owning property in the state, recovery is limited to the value of that property

Question 17

What is involved in the traditional basis for personal jurisdiction that includes waiver?

Answer 17

A defendant can waive his objections to the court’s jurisdiction and forfeit his opportunity to raise objections by not challenging an action, or he can be estopped from raising the issue

Question 18

What is involved in the minimum contacts argument under basis for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 18

• a state can assert jurisdiction over a non-resident if there is sufficient MINIMUM CONTACTS between the jurisdiction and the defendant
• and also a LONG ARM STATUTE
• as long as traditional notions of FAIR PLAY and substantial justice are not offended

Question 19

Is it enough to have minimum contacts if there is a long arm statute?

Answer 19

No

Question 20

What is the focus for minimum contacts?

Answer 20

The defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the quality and nature of the contacts as well as fairplay and substantial justice

Question 21

When do you use the minimum contacts analysis for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 21

If there is no traditional basis for jurisdiction

Question 22

If you have to use minimum contacts to get basis for personal jurisdiction, what kind of defendant is involved?

Answer 22

An out-of-state D

Question 23

What is the case that is deeply associated with the minimum contacts argument for personal jurisdiction and how did it work?

Answer 23

International shoe case. This had a company that had sales representatives in Washington and Washington levied taxes that the company wouldn’t pay, so the state sued the company in Washington. The company argued that the state did not have personal jurisdiction over them in Washington because there was no traditional basis for it. The court said that the company had personal jurisdiction because of their contacts with Washington through their employees and constitutional due process or fairness allowed the state to a assert person jurisdiction

Question 24

If a treaty is involved, how do you get personal jurisdiction through minimum contacts?

Answer 24

The cause of action is federal and the contacts are with the United States, so no state long arm statute is necessary

Question 25

What is the difference between general and specific jurisdiction as an element of minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 25

– General: the plaintiff’s cause of action DOES NOT arise from the defendant’s contacts with the forum – Specific: the plaintiff’s cause of action DOES arise from the defendant’s contacts with the forum. ***A higher level of contact is needed for general jurisdiction to satisfy due process

Question 26

How should you deal with specific and general jurisdiction as an element of minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction on an essay?

Answer 26

If there’s any plausible argument, discuss both of them. Find minimum contacts, and then determine if purposeful availment or reasonableness are present. Be sure to also discuss the need for statutory authority AND constitutional authority

Question 27

Where should you always discuss long arm statutes?

Answer 27

As a part of minimum contacts analysis

Question 28

If you are discussing minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction and the facts do not mention a long arm statute, what should you do?

Answer 28

Say that it is necessary and that one is needed in order to assert jurisdiction. Since minimum contacts always deal with a non-resident or an out-of-state defendant, if you are dealing with a resident, then they have a traditional basis for jurisdictions so no minimum contacts are necessary

Question 29

What is the minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 29

If there is continuous operations within that state such that it would be fair to require the defendant to return or defend there.

Question 30

When you are discussing minimum contacts as an element of personal jurisdiction, what are the major highlights you need to hit?

Answer 30

– general versus specific jurisdiction – purposeful availment – long arm statutes – fair play and reasonableness

Question 31

What is involved in general jurisdiction as something to discuss with regard to minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 31

CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC. The cause of action did not arise out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, but he has many contacts and lots of activity there, so much it could be called systematic or continuous contacts, so he can be sued for all matters. This requires a substantial connection to the forum state

Question 32

What is the major criteria to differentiate between general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 32

– General: continuous and systematic | – Specific: purposeful availment or foreseeability of suit

Question 33

What is required for a business to be held to have general jurisdiction under minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 33

The connection must be so substantial and continuous that the defendants can be found or sued anywhere and are considered “at home" in the forum state. Regular contacts is not usually enough. Ie: a very high degree of activity is needed, such as McDonalds selling 9 billion burgers

Question 34

Are sporadic or casual activities in a forum state considered to be enough for an unrelated cause of action to give general jurisdiction for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 34

No, but continuous and systematic activities might be enough for an unrelated cause of action, and sporadic activity [even a single act] might be enough if the cause of action arises from it

Question 35

If a Filipino brought his company to Ohio during the war in the Philippines and he kept an office there, signed checks there, had employees and meetings and accounts there, then got sued there, would that be enough for general jurisdiction?

Answer 35

Yes. He had enough activity in Ohio to be sued for an unrelated cause of action there

Question 36

If a Colombian helicopter company had an accident that killed US citizens and a claim was brought in Texas, and the contacts that the company had with Texas involved negotiating contracts there, buying planes there, and doing pilot training there, would that be enough contact for general jurisdiction to apply for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 36

That is probably not enough contact and the D made no effort to do business in Texas or to market there, so there would probably not be general jurisdiction

Question 37

What is required to find specific jurisdiction as an element of minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 37

PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT OR FORESEEABILITY OF SUIT. The cause of action must arise out of or be related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. If the suit or cause of action arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the United States or a state, it must be proven that the defendant purposely availed himself of the benefits and protections of US law, or that it was foreseeable he would be sued there.

Question 38

Would the court find specific jurisdiction over an isolated single act?

Answer 38

Probably not

Question 39

Would miscellaneous contacts be enough to find specific jurisdiction for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 39

No, only ones that spawned the suit are important

Question 40

If a California resident met a Florida guy in Florida, and the guy later came to California and bought a computer from him, but the California guy never solicited his business or purposely availed himself of the benefits or protections of Florida law, could he be sued in Florida under specific jurisdiction?

Answer 40

No

Question 41

If the internet is involved, what do you do to figure out if specific jurisdiction is present for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 41

Ask if the website expressly targeted the forum state

Question 42

Is it enough to get specific jurisdiction if there is a foreseeability that something might happen in that state?

Answer 42

No, you need more, as evidenced by the Volkswagen case

Question 43

If something happens outside of a state that harms a plaintiff in another state, can that create personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the harmed state? AKA: if a magazine is based in Florida, and they target a Hollywood actress who lives in California, is that enough for specific jurisdiction for California?

Answer 43

This is called the effects test and it says that if the act was intentional by the defendant, and he had some knowledge that it would be done in that forum state, and the effect was to harm the plaintiff in the forum state, then he can be sued there