Select Page

Civil Procedure II
University of South Carolina School of Law
Stravitz, Howard B.


I. Personal Jurisdiction

A. Specific Jurisdiction: where a D has sufficient contact with the forum to warrant asserting jurisdiction over it for matters related to its activity with the forum, but not sufficient contact to warrant general jurisdiction

1. State long arm statutes
a. Constitutional limits: the long arm statutes of some states (Calif) expressly extend to the constitutional limits of the due process clause
· many state courts have adopted the view that a seemingly limited long arm provision was intended to extend to the limits of the due process clause
b. within the state: some states (Mass) may assert jurisdiction only when the tortious conduct causing the injury occurs within the state
· but within the state is interpreted more liberally when the relevant act is an intentional tort; ie mailing of fraudulent misrepresentations
c. but for: some courts use a but for standard to determine whether a cause of action arises form the business transacted in the state by a D
· other courts have held that whether a cause of action arises out of or relates to a D’s forum contact is analogous to the issue of proximate cause in tort law

2. International Shoe Co. v. Washington: minimum contacts
a. facts: D was a Del corp with its office in St Louis, had no office in Wa, made no k’s there, and did not purchase merchandise there, but employed salesman in Wa, rented rooms for exhibiting samples in hotels or business bldgs, and shipped merchandise into the state; notice of action to collect taxes was served on a salesman employed by D, and a copy was mailed to D in St Louis
b. rule: due process requires that in order to subject a person to a judgement in personam, if he is not present within the territory, he have minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
· when a corp’s activities are continuous and systematic and give rise to the liabilities sued on, jurisdiction is proper even though no consent to be sued or authorization to an agent to accept service of process has been given
· a corp which exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state, which gives rise to obligations – a procedure which requires the corp to respond to a suit brought to enforce those obligations is not undue

3. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
a. facts: P was beneficiary of an ins policy issued by an out-of-state co.; D refused to pay P on the insured’s death; P sued in Calif, then sought to enforce the judgement in Tx
b. rule: it is sufficient that the suit was based on a k which had substantial connection with the forum state
· k was delivered in Calif and premiums were mailed from there
· due process was not violate

the state has no contacts, ties or relations
c. foreseeability: foreseeability is a relevant factor if the D’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being brought into court there;
· the fact that it was foreseeable that the car, being mobile, would cause injury in Ok is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction under the due process clause
· this would appoint any chattel the agent for service of process – amenability to suit would travel with the chattel wherever it goes
d. collateral relation: there are VW service centers in Ok, but financial benefits to D from a collateral relation to the forum state do not support jurisdiction if they do not stem from a constitutionally cognizable contact with the state
stream of commerce: the forum state does not exceed the due process clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corp that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state (Gray v. American Radiator Co.; Ill.); in WW the product had already been purchased, and the act of driving through the