Transient juris due to brief presence within the forum state per Burnham:
D subject to PJ if present in the FS even if for a very brief period of time as long as SOP made in the forum state.
Service on airplane:Even service on plane flying over forum state is valid on the presence theory.Grace v. MacArthur.
Domicile or potentially residence:
Domicile: D subject to jurisdiction if domiciled within the forum state even if absent from the state. Domicile is where D has
current dwelling place and if he intends to remain there for an indefinite period.
Residence:Some states also allow juris based on residence in forum state even if absent. A person may have several
residences and the SC has not yet ruled on the due process validity of juris based solely on residence. Hence this is a
presumptively valid method.
Consent: Express, Implied or by general appearance.
Express consent can be before or after suit is filed and is sufficient for PJ without any further contacts with the forum
state. Ex. Registration by corporation requires appointment of an agent for SOP, thereby consenting to suit in the
Implied consent is when P files a suit in a state, he is bound by its jurisdiction for any counter claims made by the D.
General appearance: a party’s voluntary appearance in an action is sufficient by itself to support jurisdiction. In many
states a D who wishes to contest, should make a special appearance raising only jurisdictional issues. If D indulges in
the merits of the claim, then he submits to the jurisdiction of the court.
Non resident motorist:
Most states have statutesallowing the courts to exercise jurisdiction over NR motorists involved in accidents in the forum
state. These statutes usually authorize SOP on in state agents and a registered mail service on the NR D himself.
Look for non resident motorist statute!
Long Arm Statutes for NR Defendants:
3 KEY QUESTIONS:
DOES THE LONG ARM STATUTE LANGUAGE AUTHORIZE PJ ? IF NO, GAME OVER!
DOES THEE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO THIS D VIOLATE DPC/MCT ?
IF MCT MET, IS IT FAIR? (ASAHI STD)
DPC Requires minimum contacts such that the mtnce of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. Factors to consider for MCT:
Property: if yes, MCT in and of itself. Inquiry ends.
D’s contacts with the forum state (shoe matrix)
Nexus b/w the contacts the cause of action (COA). (shoe matrix)
New Section 2 Page 1
Purposeful marketing/Foreseeability : in WW VW, P sued WWV based in New York, in Oklahoma state court in
connection with a car accident in Oklahoma. D claimed that the Oklahoma court had no PJ. Supreme Court entered
judgment for D based on lack of foreseeability to be sues in the forum state as D has not targeted the Oklahoma
market purposefully and once goods injected in stream of commerce, D has no control over its distribution. “D’s
conduct/connection with the forum state are such that he should be reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there”. Also see Hanson v. Denckla.
MCT but NOT Fair: Asahi a Japanese corp sole valves to a Taiwanese Co who sold it to the USA. LAS = DPC. The Court
held that although there was MC there was no PJ over the company b/c it was not fair –merely knowing that a
product may reach a remote jurisdiction in the stream of commerce is not enough to establish minimum contacts.
Property Based Jurisdiction: NOT CLEAR. NEED TO REVIEW IN SUPPLEMENTS.