Civ Pro Outline
Chapter 1: Personal Jurisdiction
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Const. forbids states from “depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Jurisdiction deals with violations of that amendment.
Bases for personal jurisdiction
Minimum Contacts- generally the only basis for an out-of-forum state defendant
Domicile
Consent
Physical Presence
State has personal jurisdiction when:
Defendant consents
The quality and nature of the contacts is sufficient
State does not have personal jurisdiction when:
Defendant does not consent AND
Contacts are casual and isolated
Specific Jurisdiction
Must satisfy minimum contacts
The claim must arise out of the continuous activity with those minimum contacts
General Jurisdiction
In-forum state contacts are very substantial
Activities there are continuous
Defendant may expect to be sued in that state for any claim, even one unrelated to its activities in the forum state
The overwhelming majority of Gen. Jur. Cases involve corporate defendants.
à There is no clearly marked line that distinguishes the minimum contacts for Spec. Jur. and the substantial contracts for Gen Jur. SEE CHART 1 (Pg. 6)
Minimum Contacts Test
Applies to individuals and corporations
Limitations found in long arm statutes are distinct from the constitutional limit imposed by the minimum contacts test
May have sufficient contacts with a state, while not acting within the state
Focuses on the time when the defendant acted, not at the time of the lawsuit
Based on the premise that parties who conduct activities in a state accept the risk that those activities will give rise to suits and understand that they may have to return to the state where the activity was conducted to defend such suits
Purposeful Availment
Difficult to define the nature and quality that makes a contact sufficient to support jurisdiction
Defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws
The purpose for asking whether the defendant has taken advantage of the benefits and protections of the state’s laws is to evaluate the defendant’s conta
ler and the retailer both exist in the U.S. and are not only merely aware that they will distribute to other states, but hope that they do.
The law today is not clear regarding stream of commerce cases
It is clear that if a defendant satisfies Justice O’Connor’s view, he will satisfy the other justices as well
Factors Other Than In-state Contacts Affecting Jurisdiction
àOnly when defendant’s have purposefully availed themselves of the opportunity to conduct activities in the state which makes the contact deliberate between the defendant and the forum state that other factors will be weighed in determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice
Interest of the forum state providing redress for its citizens
Interest of the plaintiff in obtaining relief in a convenient forum
Interest of the states in enforcing their substantive law or policy
