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;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Issues in World Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson - 1980
|
A state may not exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident with no “contacts, ties, or relations” within the state.
|
|
|
What does World Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson do?
|
Protects states right as applied in Pennoyer v. Neff and also applies the minimum contacts test as given in International Shoe v. Washington.
Teaches us that The two things that “minimum contacts” is concerned with are: i.Protecting the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum ii.Acts to ensure that the States, though their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system |
|
|
Issues in Mcgee v. International Life Insurance Co. - 1957
|
A state can exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident whose contacts with that state consist of only a single act, if that act was deliberately directed toward the forum state and if the act is what gave rise to the subject claim.
|
|
|
Issues in Hanson v. Denckla - 1958
|
A state may not exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident with only sporadic and inadvertent contacts with the state when those contacts do not give rise to the claim for which jurisdiction is being sought.
This is the case where Donner moves to Florida and Florida tries to exercise jurisdiction over her Delaware bank. |
|
|
Issues in Pennoyer v. Neff - 1878
|
No person is subject to jurisdiction of a court of the State, unless he
1) appear in court 2) be found within the State 3) be a resident of the state 4) OR have property therein a. AND if the property is attached before litigation begins. |
|
|
Issues in Hess v. Pawloski - 1927
|
A state has the power to declare that all non-residents who use its highways have consented to submit to the state’s jurisdiction for all actions arising from that highway usage.
|
|
|
What does Pennoyer v. Neff do?
|
This set up the idea that jurisdiction is all about territoriality. His entire argument is set up on state sovereignty and he has little concern with individual rights.
|
|
|
What does Hess v. Pawloski do?
|
Little in terms of policy. But it does signal to us a shift in the US... automobiles, etc.
|
|
|
Issues in International Shoe Co. v Washington - 1945
|
A state has personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation if the corporation has minimum contacts with that state and the maintenance of the suit would not offend justice nor be unreasonable.
|
|
|
What does International Shoe Co. v. Washington do?
|
It makes a dramatic shift from Legal Formalism to Legal Realism. It moves from the Pennoyer jurisdiction test focusing entirely on state's rights to a 14th amendment due process jurisdiction test focused primarily on individual rights. The only thing left of Pennoyer after this is the final shred of territoriality. Under International Shoe, the test is no longer about strict rules, but instead involves interpretation regarding "minimum contacts" and "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
|
|
|
Burger King v. Rudzewicz
|
He purposefully availed himself of Florida's laws.
When a person purposefully directs itself to a state, why is the jurisdiction legitimate? 1. state interest 2. defendant derives benefits 3. not unfair to plaintiff v. He seems to be kind of trying to undo some of what is being done in WWV. vi. One of the purposes he stresses is that the defendant wants to be able to structure its contact so that it can know where he’d have to sue/be sued later. |
|
|
Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall
|
A state does not have in personam jurisdiction over a corporation in another country that has only had small interactions with the state if those interactions were unrelated to the suit.
|
|
|
XVII. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California – 1987
|
Foreign corporations have to have more than just minimum contacts... in this case it was UNFAIR for Asahi to try to defend in CA.
|
|
|
XVIII. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia S.A. v. Hall
|
c. The contacts with Texas are not related to the claim. Thus, are their contacts sufficiently continuous and systematic to uphold jurisdiction?
i. No… it isn’t sufficient enough, but we don’t learn from this opinion what would make it sufficiently continuous. |
