Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Toledo School of Law
Klein, James M.

Civ. Pro 1 – Condensed Outline/Cram Sheet
Fall 2007 – Professor: James Klein

PERSONAL JURISDICTION (JOPOT) – Traditional Basis:
(Long Arm Statutes are not required if traditional basis is proved)
Presence in the forum state:
If you are in the forum state when you are served. Then there will be jurisdiction over your person even if you don’t live there, and don’t work there.
Consent:
Express Consent:
1. Contractual: Forum selection clause.
“All litigation rising out of this contract will be tried in XYZ state.”
2. Appearance to challenge jurisdiction:
a. The court will have to resolve the challenge
b. If you file a response to the complaint, but do not raise a challenge to the jurisdiction, then you have waived the right to contest jurisdiction, and the court will assert in personam jurisdiction. The violation can be blatant, but if you respond and do not challenge jurisdiction, then you have consented by appearance.
Domicile in the forum state: (only one place of domicile):
You’ve done things that would evidence your intent to make this particular state your permanent state.

New drivers license

Aff. asserting domicile

Job in state and pay taxes

account

Place of employment

Voter/vehicle registration

Driver’s license

Club Memberships

Mailing Address

If you are a domiciliary of the forum state the court can assert in personam jurisdiction over you, because as a domicile you enjoy protection and rights from the State.
Modern Approach:
Jurisdiction is based on whether D has “minimum contacts within the forum state” and whether the exercise of jurisdiction offends the notions of “fair play and substantial justice”
What are minimum contacts?
· Contact by D must be purposeful
· One contact may be enough if it has a strong connection to the forum state (Ex: Life Insurance case – McGee)
· Sales & purchases in forum state may not be enough to satisfy test
· Jurisdiction can be found if D has reason to believe he could be “haled into court” in forum state
· Foreseeability that product may end up in forum state may not be enough
· Stream of commerce (court divided – 3 views)
1. D must have placed product in state or done something else to establish minimum contacts (e.g., advertise, make product specifically for that state, etc.)
2.Placing product into stream of commerce with foreseeability that it could end up in forum state is enough
3.Amount of products in commerce & regularity should be considered
What is “fair play and substantial justice”?
Convenience test: