This document outlines the traditional test for determining personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil lawsuit. It examines whether the defendant is a resident of the forum state, owns property in the state, was served within the state, or consented to jurisdiction. It also discusses whether the court can exercise general jurisdiction if the defendant's contacts with the state were systemic and pervasive, or specific jurisdiction if the defendant's minimum contacts relate to the suit. Finally, it notes that even if minimum contacts are established, jurisdiction must also comport with fair play and substantial justice by considering factors such as the defendant and plaintiff's interests and interstate policies.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
This document outlines the traditional test for determining personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil lawsuit. It examines whether the defendant is a resident of the forum state, owns property in the state, was served within the state, or consented to jurisdiction. It also discusses whether the court can exercise general jurisdiction if the defendant's contacts with the state were systemic and pervasive, or specific jurisdiction if the defendant's minimum contacts relate to the suit. Finally, it notes that even if minimum contacts are established, jurisdiction must also comport with fair play and substantial justice by considering factors such as the defendant and plaintiff's interests and interstate policies.
This document outlines the traditional test for determining personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil lawsuit. It examines whether the defendant is a resident of the forum state, owns property in the state, was served within the state, or consented to jurisdiction. It also discusses whether the court can exercise general jurisdiction if the defendant's contacts with the state were systemic and pervasive, or specific jurisdiction if the defendant's minimum contacts relate to the suit. Finally, it notes that even if minimum contacts are established, jurisdiction must also comport with fair play and substantial justice by considering factors such as the defendant and plaintiff's interests and interstate policies.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
This document outlines the traditional test for determining personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil lawsuit. It examines whether the defendant is a resident of the forum state, owns property in the state, was served within the state, or consented to jurisdiction. It also discusses whether the court can exercise general jurisdiction if the defendant's contacts with the state were systemic and pervasive, or specific jurisdiction if the defendant's minimum contacts relate to the suit. Finally, it notes that even if minimum contacts are established, jurisdiction must also comport with fair play and substantial justice by considering factors such as the defendant and plaintiff's interests and interstate policies.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Traditional Base Test
Is Def a resident of forum state?
- Individuals: Residence / Corporations: Place of Business Does Defendant own property in state? Was Defendant served within the state? Personal Service: 2 PRONGS [Scalia: No Shoe or Brennan: goto Shoe] Was there consent to PJ? Actual Consent – General Appearance. Does property relate to suit? Implied Consent – Via agent as in Hess. Shaffer Fork (quasi in rem) : 1. Shoe analysis still needed if property is not source of dispute. 2. Real estate directly related to controversy may not need Shoe analysis. Contacts inherent. General Jurisdiction over Defendant? 1. Are Def. contacts with state systemic or pervasive? Helicopteros Sets General PJ Standard o Factors Not Good Enough [very difficult standard] Does state’s Long Arm cover defendant? Purchase of Chopper fleet in Forum - Rule 4(k)(1)(a) references / incorporates state law Choppers retrieved, flown back from Forum - Statute may be interpreted broadly as in Gray CEO negotiated contract in Forum $4 Million in Business in Forum Employees trained in Forum Specific Jurisdiction over Defendant? *Majority rejects each factor individually, but what about sum of factors? Minimum Contacts Analysis: Step [1] Contact between Defendant and Forum. Purposeful availment Foresee being sued in Forum? o Unilateral act insufficient (WW Volks) o Long term contract sufficient (Burger King) o See Hustler, Calder ISSUE – Stream of Commerce Cases (Ashahi) o O’connor – requires plus factor (marketing or Plaintiff has Personal custom design) o Brennan – good enough, Def. benefits from sales Jurisdiction over Defendant regardless of how products get there.
Only If Contacts are sufficient then
Step [2] Fair play and substantial justice
5 Fairness Factors 1. Defendant’s inconvenience [gravely so, Burger King (difficult to meet] 2. State’s Interest (McGee) 3. Plaintiff’s interest in litigating at home [injury] 4. Interest in efficiency 5. Interstate interests in shared substantive policies [Kulko – family harmony, no very important]
No personal jurisdiction unless defendant waives objection.