Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

15 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
The 3rd type of territorial Jx
Permits courts to use property to establish a basis for jx even when the claim of suit is unrelated to the property. personal disputes where the court could not assert personal jx over the d but had jx over the property belonging to the D. Courts must attach a seized property upon the outset of a suit, and the judgment is only binding to the property, where property can be seized to satisfy the claim of the P. Thus limiting the recoverable value to value of property
Harris v. Balk is an example of

What did we learn from PvN?
type 2 quasi in rem

Court cannot obtain in per jx over an absent non-resident without proper service of process
Court cannot use quirem jx to gain in per jx
Here, physical presence was basis for in personam jx
No quirem b/c property was attached after the verdict
2 functions of min contacts?
protects D from having to litigate in a distant or inconvenient forum
ensures that state, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as co-equal sovereigns in a fed system
What are two ways for a D to contest Jx
Make a special appearance or refuse to appear
Talk about special appearance
Making a special appearance to conteest the jx over your person without putting yourself automatically within that jx
Rule 12b2: Making a motion for lack of jx as a defense to the service of process-Shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted.
Talking about D's response to original suit, or DRTOS...
D appears, defends on merits and loses:
Action in the rendering court: Enters judgment for P
Action in enforcing court: Must enforce the rendering court's judgment, even if D challenges the rendering court's Jx, D has waived objection
DRTOS: D makes a special appearance or a 12(b)(6) motion; court agrees that jx is lacking
Action in rendering court: In most cases, dismisses action for lack of proper Jx; in some may order proper service to cure Jx defect
Action in enforcing court: If original suit is dismissed, there is no judgment to enforce. P may file a nuew suit in a court that has Jx over D
DRTOS: D makes special appearance or 12(b)(6) motion; court upholds jx; D defaults
Action in the rendering court: Enters judgment for P
Action in the enforcing court: Must enforce judgment because D already litigated the rendering court's Jx and lost
DRTOS: D loses on the objection to Jx; defends action on merits, loses; appeals
Action in the rendering court: In most states, appellate court may review decision that Jx was proper; a few treat defense on merits as waiver of Jx objection
Action in enforcing court: If Jx is upheld on appeal, or objects in waived by defense on merits, must enforce rendering court's judgment
DRTOS: D defaults, contests jx in enforcing court
Action in rendering court: enters default judgment for P, unless lack of jx is clear from complaint
Action in enforcing court: enforcing court may decide whether rendering court had Jx; if it holds it did not, refuse enforcement. If it holds it did-must enforce
DRTOS: D defaults, denies liabiltiy on the merits in enforcing court
Action in rendering court: Enters default judgment for P, unless lack of clear Jx is clear from complaint.
Action in enforcing court: Enforces the judgment; FFC precludes reexamination of merits which are settled by default
Minimum contacts test
Determines when it is appropriate court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over a defendant from another IF the person is not present within the territory of the forum.
International Shoe Test establishes new test for in personam jx over a non-resident corp
A D has much minimum contacts with the state such that the practice of jx will not offend traditional view of fair play and substantial justice to bring suit in personam.
Implicit consent shown by the D’s intentional and purposeful contacts with the state, such that its actions show a purposeful intent to avail itself to the state’s jurisdiction = foreseeability?
Minimum contacts test, the first part:
Purposeful availment: (introduced in Hanson).
Looks for some voluntary action by the defendant establishing a relationship with the forum.
1.This requirement gives the defendant fair warning that a particular activity may subject them to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign. (Burger King)
2.A unilateral act negates purposeful availment.
3.Where the cause of action does not arise from business done within the forum state, Constitutional due process requires that in-state business be systematic and continuous
MCs, the second part
Reasonableness: Fair play and substantial justice:
i.Beside looking at the defendant’s contacts, also looks to the plaintiff’s interests: (Burger King).
1.Interest of the state in providing a forum to the plaintiff;
2.The interest of the state in regulating the activity involved.
3.The burden of the defendant of defense in the forum;
4.The relative burden on the plaintiff to prosecute elsewhere
5.Whether the defendant’s activity in the forum is systematic and continuous;
6.The extent to which the claim is related to the defendant’s local activities;
7.Avoidance of multiplicity of suit and conflicting adjudications.