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;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
specific Jurisdiction- 3 steps: |
1. RELATEDNESS 2. PURPOSEFULNESS 3. REASONABLENESS |
|
|
RELATEDNESS |
Ask whether the defendant's contacts with the forum state give rise tothe plaintiff's cause of action. See McGee. |
|
|
PURPOSEFULNESS |
Ifthe contacts of the defendant (not the plaintiff) with the forum state aredeliberate or purposeful, a strong case can be made for specificjurisdiction. See W-Wide VW. |
|
|
REASONABLENESS |
Asahi holds that weak evidence of purposefulness will not sustain a finding ofjurisdiction that violates traditional notions of “fair play and substantialjustice.” Jurisdiction must be fair considering the reasonablenessfactors, which are the:· burden on the defendant, · forum state's interest, · interest of the plaintiff, · interstate judicial system's interest in the most efficient resolution,and · interest of states in furthering fundamental substantive socialpolicies. |
|
|
Daimler AG v. Bauman |
A court may assert general jurisdiction over acorporation when the corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are socontinuous and systematic as to render the corporation essentially “at home” inthe state. |
|
|
McGee |
- aTexas company sent one letter soliciting business from a California resident,and he responded by entering a contractual relationship with it. After hepaid premiums for several years, his beneficiary sought to recover on thepolicy, but had to sue in California. The Texas defendant objected byarguing that it had no other policyholder in that state and had never had anoffice or employee in that state. The Supreme Court held that itknowingly established a contractual relationship with the deceased, and thatunder the circumstances forcing the beneficiary to come the company's homestate would be unfair. |
|
|
BurgerKing |
theCourt held that the Michigan defendant had a purposeful contact with the forumstate of Florida because he knew he was entering a long-term contractualrelationship with a Florida corporation. He thus sought to enjoy thebenefits and protections of that state and to profit from business dealings witha resident of that state. |
|
|
Pennoyer |
Underthe Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unlessshe voluntarily appears in the court, is found within the state, resides in thestate, or has property in the state that the court has attached. |
|
|
Jackson v. California Newspapers Partnership |
A website may give rise to specific jurisdiction over a defendant in adistant state, but only if the site is sufficiently interactive to satisfy dueprocess. |
|
|
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson |
Foreseeability alone is not sufficient toauthorize a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over anon-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forumstate. -Defendant does not have acontact with a state simply because a consumer transports one of thedefendant’s goods into the forum |
