Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
33 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Pennoyer v. Neff
|
Lawyer unpaid fees attaches guys property after judgment, buys the property, then sells it to someone else.
Holding: QIR2 the property must be attached from the beginning of the case. Court said the basis for in personam is personal service within the state or consent. |
|
|
Hess v. Pawloski
|
Citizen of PA gets into car accident with a citizen of MASS in MASS. State has a statute that says by driving on our roads, you have consented to having an agent represent you for service.
Holding: Implied consent through statute was enough. You have consented to have an agent receive service. |
|
|
International Shoes v. Washington
|
WA wants to collect taxes for an unemployment fund. Company is based in Illinois. Personal service on salesperson and mailed notice.
Holding: Creation of minimum contacts test- minimum contacts within a state so that jurisdiction over D does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Presence should be systematic and continuous. |
|
|
McGee v. International Life Ins Co
|
AZ health insurance company sold to Texas. After the insured from CA died, Texas company refused to pay up. Insured sued company in California. Court found substantial connections with CA to have PJ (contract was sent there, payments came from there, evidence needed for trial is there, other people they insure are probably from there). Also, CA has an interest in helping their citizens.
|
|
|
Hanson v. Denckla
|
PA woman set up a trust in DE, and then later moved to FL. She died in FL and her estate tried to sue the DE bank in Florida. Holding: Defendant must purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. When the trust was created, there was no connection with FL.
|
|
|
Shaffer v. Heitner
|
QIR2- Shareholder sues Greyhound in DE where its headquarters is, including suing individual directors. They tried to attach stock as property because a DE statute said that stock must be located in DE. Holding: Existence and attachment of property in the state is not enough; you need more contacts. Overturned the QIR2 part of Pennoyer. All questions of non-present, non-domociled Defs has to be analyzed using International Shoe. Confusingly said that all questions of jurisdiction need minimum contacts.
|
|
|
World-Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson
|
Car bought in NY caused crash in OK on the way to AZ. Sued in OK. Regional distributor WWVW, and dealer say there’s no PJ. In applying minimum contacts, the court says contacts must be purposeful and gave 5 factors for fairness.
|
|
|
Burger King v. Rudzewicz
|
Two men from MI bought a BK franchise and when they breached their contract, BK sued them in Miami where they are headquartered. Question was whether the men had enough contacts with FL to be sued there. Used minimum contacts test. After finding contacts, the court presumes them reasonable and then it’s up to D to say why it’s not fair. Not just about inconvenience; has to be unconstitutional. Contacts when there’s a contract.
|
|
|
Asahi
|
Guy injured on his motorcycle in CA sues the Taiwenese tire maker in CA. Taiwanese company brings in Japanese corp, Asahi. Question was whether Asahi purposefully availed itself of CA to establish minimum contacts. Court was split on contacts, but agreed that it would be unfair in CA.
|
|
|
Burham
|
Couple split up and wife moved from NJ to CA. When visiting his kids in CA, husband was served for divorce and child support. After Shaffer, courts wondered if presence of a person in the state is still enough. Transient presence is enough. Presence doesn’t have to be related to the litigation, it just has to be knowing and voluntary. All justices said there was jurisdiction but were split on why.
|
|
|
J McIntyre Machinery
|
British company sold scrap metal machines to a company in Ohio, who then distributed them over the US. Guy in NJ was injured by one of them and sued them in NJ. The court was totally split on stream of commerce. Follow the narrowest opinion: Breyer, who said that just going on precedent there wouldn’t be jurisdiction anyway. Said they didn’t need to make up some new test; it didn’t pass stream of commerce and had only one contact with NJ. None of the opinions even mention fairness. NEED TO KNOW ALL 3 OPINIONS
|
|
|
Good Year
|
Teenagers from NC traveling in France died when their van flipped over due to defective tires. Families sued Goodyear USA and its subsidiaries in France, Turkey, and Luxembourg. Rejects stream of commerce and uses continuous and systematic affiliations. Adds that the company should feel at home there.
|
|
|
Perkins
|
Company from Philippines with offices in Ohio. For claim arising in the Phillipines, court upheld PJ in Ohio. General jurisdiction
|
|
|
Helicopteros
|
People killed in helicopter crash in Peru. Columbian company operating in Texas sued in Texas. Needed general jurisdiction because the claim did not arise from activities in Texas. Did not find enough continuous and systematic contacts for PJ.
|
|
|
Zippo
|
Created a sliding scale of the type of websites: passive v. interactive. Might be outdated since basically every website is interactive now.
|
|
|
Revell v. Lidov
|
Professor posted an article accusing Revell about an airplane crash. He sued Lidov for defamation in Texas where he lives. No PJ since the article wasn’t targeted at Texas; Lidov didn’t even know he lived there. Calder Test- where are the effects felt? Also, the site was not that interactive. Contacts through the internet.
|
|
|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank
|
Beneficiaries of trusts were allowed to appear at the hearing and object to the way the bank was investing the money, but they didn’t know about the hearings. Notice was by publication in the newspaper. Court rejected this notice for some of the beneficiaries. Said notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, and must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.
|
|
|
Connecticut v. Doehr
|
Conn. Statute allowed P to attach D’s property at the beginning of the lawsuit for a battery case. Court said this statute was unconstitutional because P’s interest was way too small in comparison with D’s interest in his house. Said the statute needed to include bonds put up by P, pre-attachment hearings, and excuses for exigent circumstances
|
|
|
Strawbridge v. Curtiss
|
P from Mass, Ds from Mass and Vermont= No diversity
|
|
|
Mas v. Perry
|
Grad students living in LA were spied on by their landlord, a LA resident. Diversity was okay b/c Mrs. Mas had not changed her domicile from MISS yet and her husband was an alien.
|
|
|
Hertz v. Friend
|
Alleged violation of CA’s wage and hour laws. Hertz is incorporated in NJ and wants to remove to Federal Ct. Court adopts the nerve center test to determine principal place of business.
|
|
|
Belleville Catering
|
Citizenship is where the partners are situated.
|
|
|
Mottley
|
Couple injured by railroad received free pass for life. Federal statute made it illegal to give free passes. Couple pleaded breach of contract, anticipating the railroad using the federal statute as a defense. This did not create a federal question because it wasn’t part of their exact claim. They could prove their breach of contract claim without a federal question.
|
|
|
Osborn
|
Federal question just has to be an ingredient of the claim
|
|
|
American Well Works
|
Sale of pump. Claim was based on state trade libel law but the question was whether a company violated a federal patent. Court found no federal question and held that: “a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.
|
|
|
Smith v. Kansas City Title
|
Federal farm loan act. Basically same as Well Works but they did find federal question. Held: if right to relief depends on the construction of application of the Constitution or a federal statute, and federal claims rest on a reasonable foundation there is a federal question
|
|
|
Moore
|
Employee sued his employer under a state employer’s liability law. He claimed that the employer violated the Federal Safety Appliance Act. Court held that there was no federal question.
|
|
|
Merrell Dow
|
Claims for damages to pregnant mothers for taking Bendectin. Asserted a number of state claims including negligence per se. Negligence per se however was for violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Court found no federal question. Majority really emphasized that the FDCA did not create a private right of action, which made lower courts wonder if you needed it for federal question.
|
|
|
Grable
|
Guys land was sold by the IRS to settle unpaid taxes. He sued D who bought it at public auction to quiet title. Court found federal question. Held: a private right of action isn’t necessary to get federal question, but it is helpful because it shows Congress’ intent.
-3 factor test for determining if state law claim arises under federal law, and is therefore central: Consumed Smith and Moore 1) if the case necessarily raises a federal question 2) the federal issue is actually disputed and substantial 3) federal jurisdiction will not disturb any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. |
|
|
Piper v. Reyno
|
Airplane crash killed Scottish citizens
|
|
|
Rios v. Davis
|
Car accident where everyone is found negligent. Defendant from first case wanted to use issue preclusion for D’s negligence in the second case. D’s negligence from the first case was not essential to the judgment, did not affect how the verdict came out and not essential because he couldn’t appeal.
|
|
|
Taylor v. Sturgell
|
Non-parties are bound when: they agree to be bound, bound by a pre-existing substantive legal relationship with a party, adequately represented by a party, they controlled the litigation, litigated through a proxy, special statutory schemes
|
|
|
Blonder-Tongue
|
Alleged infringement of a federal patent. Non-mutual defensive issue preclusion was allowed.
|
