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;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Hess v. Pawloski
|
A state has the power to declare that all non-residents who use its highways have impliedly consented to submit to the state’s jurisdiction for all actions arising from that highway usage.
|
|
|
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
|
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.
|
|
|
McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
|
A state may exercise jurisdiction over a party whose contacts with that state consist of only a single act, provided that that act is what gave rise to the claim for which jurisdiction is being sought, and was deliberately directed toward the state.
|
|
|
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Inc.
|
A non-resident who has a minimum connection in states other than its’ own can be considered under the jurisdiction of those other states in which the minimum connection is there, assuming it isn’t unfair and assuming the state has some interest.
|
|
|
Calder v. Jones
|
If a non-resident does intentional harm aimed at another State in which the brunt of the harm will be felt and the brunt of the importance of their action will lie, the non-resident should anticipate being taken to court there.
|
|
|
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
|
If a non-resident targets a state for personal benefit and has “minimum contact” within that state, the non-resident can be under the jurisdiction of that state.
|
|
|
Burnham v. Superior Court of California
|
Service of process upon a non-resident physically present in the forum state is valid and does not violate due process. The basic standard of whether a state court may obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident is measured by whether the service of process offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
|
|
|
Gust v. Flint
|
A non-Georgia company cannot be held liable unless they have done the acts set forth in OCGA 9-10-91. Appelant didn’t do the stuff under OCGA 9-10-91, therefore there is no jurisdiction. Justice Weltner makes it very clear that Georgia applies Georgia law… not the “New York” or “Illinois” rule. No acts, no jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Revell v. Lidov
|
The act of posting on a website that could be read in another state does not make one subject to jurisdiction of other states. Moreover, hosting a website in which people can post information that can be read in another state is not sufficient to make the host subject to the jurisdiction of other states (greater interactivity, however, can make jurisdiction).
|
|
|
Shaffer v. Heitner
|
In order to justify exercise of jurisdiction in rem, basis for jurisdiction must be sufficient to justify exercising jurisdiction over interests of persons in a thing; standard for determining whether exercise of jurisdiction over interests of persons is consistent with due process clause is minimum contacts standard-contacts, ties or relations with the state.
|
|
|
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall
|
Due process requires “certain minimum contacts” such that the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play.” Mere purchases, even at regular intervals, are not enough to warrant jurisdiction. If the cause of action does not arise out of the very small minimum contacts, the non-resident is not under jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California
|
A non-resident must purposely avail himself of the forum State by more than just putting a product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it will reach the forum state.
|
|
|
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson
|
A state may not exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident with no “contacts, ties, or relations” within the state.
|
|
|
Hanson v. Denckla
|
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.
|
|
|
Pennoyer v. Neff
|
In rem jurisdiction is available only if the property is attached at the beginning of the litigation. Without that, a state does not have jurisdiction over the property unless the party is a resident, is within the state, or appears in court.
|
