5 Written Questions

1. 1. Domicile
   2. Tag
   3. Consent
   4. Minimum Contacts
2. 1. court and parties
   2. be directed at D
   3. name and address of P's attorney
   4. time within which D must appear & defend
   5. notify D a failure to appear and defend will result in default judgment.
   6. clerk's signature
   7. court's seal.
3. [minimum contacts; continuous and systematic]
   Facts: D employed about 12 salesmen in WA, but D had no office or stocks in WA.
   i. Held: Jurisdiction over D affirmed, it was reasonable because of the long term, continuous acts that generated substantial business.
   b. Issue:
   i. When may a state exercise PJ over a corporation?
   c. Rules:
   i. A corporation will be subject to PJ in a state if it has certain minimum contacts that make jurisdiction consistent w/ traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
   ii. Continuous and systematic contacts will result in PJ in a state for all purposes; isolated casual contacts will not result in personal jurisdiction for suits unconnected to the casual presence.
4. Facts: P had a car accident in OK and tried to sue the seller of the car (NY, NJ resident) in OK.
   1. Held: no sufficient contacts. D did nothing to make contacts in OK. Mere foreseeability is not enough.
   ii. Issue:
   1. May a resident of a state who has an accident in another state sue the seller of the vehicle in the state where the accident occurred rather than the state where the sale of the vehicle occurred?
   iii. Rules:
   1. The D must have chosen to do some act that creates the necessary minimum contacts w/ the forum state.
   2. To establish jurisdiction over the D, the minimum contacts must be the D's contacts, not the P's.
   iv. Dissent: Brennan
   1. The court shouldn't focus only on D's contacts and interests, but on fairness and reasonableness and all relevant interests. The forum state had a strong interest in litigation b/c the accident occurred in OK, witnesses & evidence were in OK, state has interest in enforcing hwy safety laws, and a car dealer has substantial benefits from a nationwide network of hwys, of which OK's hwys are a part. Focused on fairness test.
5. Facts: D engaged in negotiations and purchasing equipment in the forum state.
   i. Held: One trip to negotiate a contract, purchasing but not selling equipment, and accepting checks drawn on a TX bank do not constitute jurisdiction.
   b. Rule:
   i. Purchases, even at regular intervals, in the forum state do not constitute the systematic and continuous contacts required for general jurisdiction.
   ii. Brennen- would say that where the contacts are related to the claim, even if they did not give rise to the claim, the court should be permitted to exercise specific jurisdiction expanding the scope of specific jurisdiction.

5 Matching Questions

1. Insurance Corp. of Ireland
2. Flowers
3. Zippo Dot Com
4. Prior View- Pennoyer
5. Hanson

1. a Facts: Mitchell sued D who didn't live in OR. Mitchell published notice in local newspaper. D didn't file answer. Sheriff seized D's property in that state.
   i. Held: Seizure of the land was void because D was not served properly.
   b. Issues:
   i. Whether courts in OR could exercise PJ over a nonresident?
   ii. Whether courts in OR could exercise personal jurisdiction over property located in OR but owned by a nonresident?
   c. Rules:
   i. In order for a state to exercise PJ over a non-resident, they must either be served within the state (tag) or must voluntary appear in the court. (consent).
   ii. A state may exercise jurisdiction over property located with its boundaries, regardless of where the owner resides.
2. b Facts: D did not provide the necessary info for the court to evaluate its contacts with PA when ordered to do so.
   i. Held: For not providing the info, the court assumed D had minimum contacts necessary.
   b. Issue:
   i. Whether a court may impose a finding of personal jurisdiction as a sanction for disobeying a court order to produce info. Relating to the personal jurisdiction issue?
   c. Rules:
   i. Personal jurisdiction is a liberty right and may be waived by word or conduct; conduct may create an estoppel to dispute jurisdiction.
   ii. Where the D's conduct prevents the inquiring into personal jurisdiction over that D by no t answering relevant discovery, the court may, as a sanction for that conduct, impose personal jurisdiction over the D thereby estopping by conduct, the PJ issue.
3. c [purposeful availment]
   Facts: Donnor went to DE to create a trust fund. Donnor moved to FL, and exchanged communications with the trust co.(D) while in FL. Trust co. sent her money from the trust to FL. Heirs in FL want to sue D in FL.
   1. Held: no sufficient contacts because D made no actions to make contacts in FL and had no other contacts with FL.
   ii. Issue:
   1.What kind of contacts satisfy the minimum contacts necessary for PJ?
   iii. Rule:
   1. The court looks to the non-resident D to see if he affirmatively acted (purposefully availed himself) to benefit by activities in the forum state.
4. d 1. The web site owner must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum state over the internet for specific jurisdiction (related to the business conducted) to apply.
   2. Internet sites are active, passive, or interactive; passive sites that people just log onto do not support jurisdiction.
5. e Facts: Notice was sent to house, but the package was returned unclaimed. State then published a notice in the local newspaper.
   i. Held: Jones was entitled to notice reasonably calculated to reach him.
   b. Issue:
   i. Whether knowledge that notice has failed to be delivered (certified mail being returned unclaimed) requires additional efforts to notify the party?
   c. Rule:
   i. One who knows that the notice has not been delivered, must take additional action, reasonably calculated to actually inform the person to be notified.

5 Multiple Choice Questions

1. Facts: P(PA resident) drove car through Massachusetts and collided with D. He sued D in Massachusetts.
   i. Held: MA law that stated a nonresident who drove a car in MA impliedly gave the registrar his power of attorney to accept service of process, provided registered mail notice was received by D was upheld.
   b. Issue:
   i. Whether a state may acquire PJ over a nonresident merely because that person drives a car on roads within the state and has a collision within the state w/ another car on the roads?
   c. Rule:
   i. A state may declare that all non-residents who use its highways have impliedly consented to the state's jurisdiction for actions related to use of the highways.
   1. Helicopteros
   2. Stretching Pennoyer- Pawloski
   3. Service of the summons
   4. Prior View- Pennoyer
2. State courts do not have to exercise jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the constitution. Each state can make the decision to assert some or all jurisdictional authority available to them.
   i. Numerated- authorizes their courts to exercise jurisdiction over a D for claims that arise from specific types of contacts with the state.
   ii. Not numerated- catch all; authorizes jurisdiction to the extent permitted under the federal constitution
   1. Specific Jurisdiction- Long Arm Statutes
   2. General Jurisdiction- Perkins
   3. Service of the summons
   4. Transient Jurisdiction- Burnham
3. Facts: Husband was in CA on business and visited his children, and his wife served him in CA.
   b. Issue:
   i. Whether a state may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident who was served in the state while temporarily in the state where the case has nothing to do w/ the reason he was there?
   c. Rule:
   i. Physical presence in the state is all that is required for jurisdiction.
   d. Scalia- Historically physical presence was enough. Since physical presence is enough was a well established traditional principle of jurisdiction, it satisfies due process.
   e. White- physical presence is widely accepted and therefore does not violate due process.
   f. Shaffer's broad statement that all PJ issues are governed by International Shoe is dicta regarding anything but in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction
   1. Specific Jurisdiction- Long Arm Statutes
   2. Transient Jurisdiction- Burnham
   3. Modern- International Shoe
   4. General Jurisdiction- Perkins
4. Facts: Dusenberry claimed he never received notice, although U.S. had sent it to him through certified mail.
   i. Held: There does not have to be proof that the party actually received the notice.
   b. Issue:
   i. Must notice be reasonably calculated to give the party the info or must there be proof the party actually received the notice?
   c. Rule:
   i. The notice must be reasonably calculated to appraise the party of the pendency of the case.
   1. Flowers
   2. McGee
   3. Dusenberry
   4. Calder
5. Facts: P bought a ticket for a cruise ship with a forum selection clause.
   i. Held: P must go to FL because a forum selection clause is equivalent to consent.
   b. Issue:
   i. Whether forum selection clauses in Ks are enforceable?
   c. Rules:
   i. Forum selection clauses in a K are generally enforceable.
   ii. Forum selection clauses are reviewed for fundamental fairness, which examines both parties' problems and reasons.
   1. Calder Effects Test
   2. Carnival Cruise Lines
   3. Waiving service
   4. Fairness Test

5 True/False Questions

1. Keeton → [purposeful availment]
   Facts: Donnor went to DE to create a trust fund. Donnor moved to FL, and exchanged communications with the trust co.(D) while in FL. Trust co. sent her money from the trust to FL. Heirs in FL want to sue D in FL.
   1. Held: no sufficient contacts because D made no actions to make contacts in FL and had no other contacts with FL.
   ii. Issue:
   1.What kind of contacts satisfy the minimum contacts necessary for PJ?
   iii. Rule:
   1. The court looks to the non-resident D to see if he affirmatively acted (purposefully availed himself) to benefit by activities in the forum state.

   True        False

2. Constitutional Notice Requirement- Mullane → Facts: P bought a ticket for a cruise ship with a forum selection clause.
   i. Held: P must go to FL because a forum selection clause is equivalent to consent.
   b. Issue:
   i. Whether forum selection clauses in Ks are enforceable?
   c. Rules:
   i. Forum selection clauses in a K are generally enforceable.
   ii. Forum selection clauses are reviewed for fundamental fairness, which examines both parties' problems and reasons.

   True        False

3. Burger King → Facts: Dusenberry claimed he never received notice, although U.S. had sent it to him through certified mail.
   i. Held: There does not have to be proof that the party actually received the notice.
   b. Issue:
   i. Must notice be reasonably calculated to give the party the info or must there be proof the party actually received the notice?
   c. Rule:
   i. The notice must be reasonably calculated to appraise the party of the pendency of the case.

   True        False

4. Service of the summons → 1. Summons and complaint must be physically delivered to each D.
   2. By any person at least 18 and not a party.
   3. P may request service be made by marshal or deputy marshal or by person specially appointed.

   True        False

5. Calder → Facts: Florida editor and writer libeled P, a CA resident and famous actress, in a magazine article, which had large circulations in CA. Ds had no other contacts with CA.
   1. Held: Harm to P primarily occurred in CA, article was written about P's activities in CA, and the target of the article was a CA resident. CA had PJ over both editor and writer.
   ii. Issue:
   1. Whether the writer and editor of an article in a magazine have sufficient minimum contacts to be sued for libel in the state where the P resides and conducts business?
   iii. Rules:
   1. Each D's minimum contacts are judged separately.
   2. Merely being an employee of a corporation with the minimum contacts is not enough to permit the state to assert PJ over the employee.
   3. When a writer and editor direct an article at a person, the harm is to that person in the place where that person lives or does business; this does provide the requisite minimum contacts to make it reasonable for the writer and editor to be sued where harm was inflicted.

   True        False