CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
I. PERSONAL JURSIDICTION
-Does the court have the authority to issue a decision binding the parties in a suit?
-Does the arm of the court reach out and touch a D?
A INDIVIDUALS
1. Actual control over D’s person (old common law)
2. Territoriality
A. power over person through constructive process(summons) –
B. Domicile Blackmer v. US – where you live
C. Express consent – voluntarily chose not to raise issue of wrong service
D. implied consent – when you don’t appear before the court and don’t consent to bad service.
1. proportionality problems
2. priv. & immun problems
B. CORPORATIONS
1. territoriality
A. state of incorporation (early test)
B. express consent
C. implied consent
1. No Priv & Immun
2. Commerce Clause problem
3. Proportionality problem
D. Presence (doing business; can be defeated by leaving state
*General Jurisdiction – D can sue for a claim that arose anywhere
*Territoriality Juris. – suit for a claim that arises in the forum. D must be present w/in the juris of the court. Due Process is seen in the progression of the following cases
Presence-Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 62 – dispute over tract of land in Oregon 2 cases a) Mitchell v. Neff (attny.’s fees ) b) Neff v. Pennoyer – Neff wants pennoyer off his land. * Neff –should have attached the land – been present on it asserted control over it if so he might have prevailed. – Penn. won Juris. based on the raw power of the state. Sets the 4 traditional bases for PJ
1. presence – means the D was present when served w/ process (gives the state general juris.)
2. agent – can serve process on D’s agent
3. domicile – if D is domiciled in the state you have general Juris.
4. consent to juris.- D can consent to Juris.
*case makes it hard to get PJ if the D’s don’t live or work in forum state
Implied consent – Hess v. Powlaski (1927) CB 71 – car wreck in Mass. D leaves Mass. so hecouldn’t be served but Mass has a non-resident motor statute (long arm statute) which means if you get into an accident in Mass. you consent to the forum state’s juris. (b/c you drove in that state)
*Implied consent – when you enter a state in a car you have consented to an agency relat. w/ the registrar
*consent was P
test
single contact – McGee v. International Life Insurance (1957) CB 91 – Tex. Corp. sells 1 contract of insurance to a man in Calif. Insur Co. breaches contract.
· D solicited business from Calif.
· Relatedness – D’s contact w/ the forum state is related to the cause of action
· State interest – Calif. has an interest in providing forum for resident
Involuntary contact – Hanson v. Deckla -(1958) 93 wealthy Penn. Widow sets up a trust w/ a Del. Bank – she moves to Fla.. She dies family wants to know if Fla. has juris over bank. S.C. held no.
· no relevant contacts
· bank never reached out to Fla. – business did not result from “purposeful availment” – D corp. must reach out to the state.
* In McGee D reached out so their was purposeful availment
Forseeability alone is not a minimum contact – World – Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) CB 97 – family moves from NY to Ariz. Bought an Audi in NY – car
