Select Page

Civil Procedure II
UMKC School of Law
Berman, Jeffrey B.

Civ Pro II Outline – Berman Fall 2008
Choosing the Forum (Judicial Jurisdiction)
I.                   14th Amendment determines the minimum standard for which jurisdiction is permissible (Due Process Clause).
II.                Personal Jurisdiction (In Personum), 5 ways for the court to get power over D:
a.     General Jurisdiction/Traditional Basis (Pennoyer v. Neff):
                                                             i.      State courts have personal jurisdiction (physical power over D) when D has:
1.     Consent – D must “appear” in court;
2.     Presence – D must be “found” w/in the state; OR
3.     Domicile – D must be a “resident” of the state
b.     General Jurisdiction/Modern Basis (International Shoe v. Washington):
                                                             i.      State courts have personal jurisdiction when a D has necessary minimum contacts w/ the state:
1.     As long as the suit doesn’t offend “traditional notions of fairness and substantial justice”
2.     Courts look at the nature & quality of the contact and whether or not the cause of action arose from those activities (International Shoe)
3.     What are “minimum contacts” that satisfy Personal Juris?:
a.     Activities that are systematic and continuous (Helicopteros v. Hall – helicopter crash case)
b.     Single contact is OK if its substantial contact w/state (McGee v. Int. Life Ins. – insurance case)
c.      Purposeful availment to privileges of that state (Hansen v. Denkla – trust fund case)
d.     Stream of Commerce – manufacture of products are sold in contemplation of use in that state (Gray v. American Radiator – retail/wholesale)
e.      D must reasonably foresee being sued in that state (World Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson – tort liability)
f.       D’s actions intentionally directed at a resident of that state (Calder v. Jones – libel/intentional tort case)
g.     Determine that D’s contract negotiations, actual course of dealing, & contract terms are minimum contacts (Burger King v. Rudzewicz – franchise case)
4.     EXCEPTION: Even if there are minimum contacts, D may not have Personal Jurisdiction when:
a.     the burden on D outweighs the interests of P (Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court)
c.      Long-Arm/Specific Jurisdiction – once minimum contacts are established, the state must have statutory authorization granting it jurisdi

– grants consent by suing or answering a suit in that state
a.     It is assumed that there IS jurisdiction if you don’t respond saying there isn’t (Insurance Corp of Ireland v. Bauxites)
2.     Contractual consent in Advance (waiver) – contract clause stipulates jurisdiction (express consent)
3.     Coerced consent in Advance – agreeing to be sued in a certain state in exchange for something
4.     Implied consent –D’s instate activities are enough to justify being sued for things related to those activities, i.e. driving (this is rarely followed) (Hess v. Pawloski)
f.       Transient (i.e. D’s presence) – if D can be served in that state then D can be sued there
                                                             i.      Presense in forum state; AND
                                                           ii.      D must be served with notice w/in forum state
1.     Burnham v. Sup. Ct. – service while in state temporarily is enough