PJ-specific Flashcards
Calder v. Jones
(JURIS based on effect?)
(def argued foreseability not enough)
Defamation-natl enq-sprm ct says yes Cali even though write/editor from FL. Story concerned w/Cali activit of Cali resident-brunt injury felt there, largest distribution there.
= jurisdiction is proper based on the “effects of their Fl conduct in Cali “ ( not untargtd negl, but intentional act)
Keeton v. Hustler
Pltf just pick anywhere?
Libel suit-hustle mag
Keeton NY citizen, sue in NH (cuz NH didn’t bar SOL)
Relationship btwn claim & contact. COA Arises out of activity-nh residents read it, copies distrib there. States int in coop w/sister states
*how many cookies is enough
*if publication randomly end up ther prob not enough
Calder effects test
Publication,defamation
Intentional conduct : knowledge that harm/effect would be seen in Cali => def could have foreseen
1) brunt of effects of publication felt in forum state &
2) def. Could have foreseen this
Choice of law
For many states is where tort occurred or breach of contract
Choice of forum provisions
Where litigation will take place
1) convenience: finances, lawyer knows home area, witness subpeona,shipping store documents
2) judge & jury bias (not one of us) (diversity addresses)
3) forum state decides what law applies
Does contract alone =contact?
Burger King
No. Easier, but not mechanical.
Look at - prior negotiations & contemplated future conseq, terms of contract, parties actual course of dealing
Fail make payments to Fl=foreseeable injury to Fl co.
-contract lang Fl would govern=he knew might hailed into ct there.
NOT about best forum or that Michigan had an int.
LOOK at Pltf interest cuz he picks.:
-fl meets min cont
-yes, purpose availed to benefits & laws in Fl
Tough to say unfair once min cont met
Ct didn’t buy bargaining disadvantage arguemnt cuz had business background.
(Vs. carnival cruise)
-
Forum selection clause
Carnival cruise lines v. Shute
Suprm ct upheld.1991(argue fairness factors)
-if there was no notice
-if no connection btwn forum & parties
-extreme inconv.
-evid of bad faith or fraud
-evid if contract do adhesion
Argue: was tiny little print on back of ticket (fairness )
Plurality
Less than a majority, but next # of votes
Nicastro
Asahi
Stream o commerce plus
Tire exploded Cali, sued Taiwan manuf. valve-asahi,japan. Def settled left w/asahi & Shen jaing tire manu)
*only Suprm ct case use fairness factors to deny JURIS!
Use 1st three FF, best arguemnt. Burden def to high, no int for forum state(cuz already settled)
Asahi
O’connor
To find min, contacts def has to do algo purposely directed @ forum. Merely placing in SOC not enough, need plus factor
Plus factor: market in forum, advertise, establish channels thru distribution
Asahi
Brennan
Was enough to put product in regular flow
Def benefited from state laws, no burden
As long ass def aware final product placed inSOC in that state then is foreseeable jurisdiction suit there.
J. McIntyre Machinery ltd v. Nicastro (2011)
Plurality opinion, no majority
Metal shearing machine, injured hand in NJ. McIntyre own & operates inEngland. Never marketed goods to NJ or shipped them there. Did have ohio based distrib co til 2011.- did not instruct that co. avoid any certain state(stupid argument) - regularly attend conventions & exhibitions
- not gonna fly. NJ courts no JURIS over McIntyre. Contacts were not purposeful. It’s a def actions not expectations that allow a state to exercise JURIS over a def.
- great concurring opinions o’connor & Brennan
