I. Limits On Personal Jurisdiction
A. Personal jurisdiction
1. Authority to render judgment over a person
2. Concerned about defendant
a. Plaintiff consents to jurisdiction by bringing suit
B. Subject matter jurisdiction
1. Power of courts to decide certain kinds of cases
C. Both subject matter and personal jurisdiction are required for court to hear case
D. Pennoyer v. Neff (1822)
1. Personal jurisdiction
a. In personam jurisdiction
i. Person must be present in the state at the time of personal service of process
b. In rem jurisdiction
i. Jurisdiction over property within state for claims regarding the land itself
c. Quasi in rem jurisdiction
i. Land is means of satisfying another judgment, but claim is unrelated to land
I. Must attach property first, thus giving jurisdiction over the property
E. Milliken v. Meyer
1. Domicile in state is alone sufficient for personal jurisdiction
F. International Shoe v. Washington
1. I. Shoe Test (MEMORIZE FOR EXAM!!!)
a. “Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
2. Factors for determining minimum contacts
a. Volume and nature of contacts
b. Systematic and continuous contacts
c. Relation between contact and claim
d. Balance of conveniences
e. State interest in regulating defendant’s conduct
f. State interest in opening courts to its residents
g. Location of witnesses and evidence
h. Whether defendant derives benefits from contacts with state (purposeful availment)
i. Whether defendant could foresee suit in forum
3. Presence in state no longer necessary for jurisdiction (change from Pennoyer)
a. Allows for serving of process outside of state
4. General v. Specific jurisdiction (see 2/8 CN!!!!!)
a. General jurisdiction
i. Contacts substantial and continuous enough to support forum’s jurisdiction over claims unrelated to those contacts
ii. Dispute blind
b. Specific jurisdiction
i. Claim arises from or is related to the defendant’s contact with the forum
ii. Dispute specific
G. Shaffer v. Heitner
1. I. Shoe applies to corporate and individual defendants
2. I. Shoe applies to in rem and q
one of her extra factors is met
J. Burger King
1. Contractual relationship is not enough to establish minimum contacts, must show more to prove a purposeful availment of forum state
K. Factors
1. Minimum contacts
a. Volume and nature of contacts (systematic and continuous)
b. Purposeful availment
i. Does defendant derive benefits from contacts with state?
ii. Had defendant purposefully directed acts towards the state?
I. Did defendant seek to serve market?
II. Upstream v. Downstream D’s
A. Worldwide – Suit went downstream – manufacturer à distributor
1. Did defendant deliver product into stream of commerce with expectation it would be purchased in forum?
B. Asahi – Suit went upstream – manufacturer à parts maker
1. Did defendant have purposeful conduct directed toward forum showing intent to serve the market?
2. Brennan uses Worldwide “stream of commerce” test; O’Connor uses Worldwide and adds an extra factor for upstream
