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

34 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
What is the 2 part test for personal jurisdiction?
1) Does the defendent satisfy "minimum contacts"?
2) Is exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendent reasonable under notions of "fair play and substantial justice"?
Do civil law countries distinguish between personal and subject matter jurisdiction?
Not typically. They instead tend to rule that a matter should be decided at the location of the defendent's domicile (general jurisdiction)
What is first major case in personal jurisdiction case law?
International Shoe v. Washington
International Shoe v. Washington
Established rule that a state may assert jurisdiction only over those defendants who “have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (in other words, does not offend notion of due process)
What is the first case that deals with defendents having to "purposefully avail" themselves toward a forum state?
Worldwide Volkswagen
Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson
NY residents brought liability suit against NY auto dealer in Oklahoma court after they crashed their car there. Court ruled no personal jurisdiction without "purposeful availment" toward the forum state.
Asahi Metal v. Superior Court of California
• 1st time since the adoption of the purposeful availment analysis that court denied jurisdiction over a defendant that purposefully availed itself of the benefits and burdens of doing business in the forum
• Asahi establishes "minimum contacts" as a necessary but not sufficient condition to satisfy the requirements for personal jurisdiction.
Which case concluded that "minimum contacts" was necessary, but not by itself a sufficient condition to satisfy the requirements for personal jurisdiction?
What was the SCOTUS's final judgment on "fair play and substantial justice" in Asahi?
The SCOTUS was concerned about the burden placed on a foreign company in defending the action in a U.S. forum. "Great care should be taken when extending our notions of personal jurisdiction internationally."
Burnham v. Superior Court of California
• Supreme Court held that physical presence of the defendant alone is sufficient to exercise jurisdiction over a natural person.
• Physical presence rule of Burnham may not extend to corporations
• Courts appear to be concerned that "tag" jurisdiction does not comport with notions of due process
Goto v. Malaysia Airline
• Family of Goto sued airline after he died in flight.
• Defendant can be subjected to the jurisdiction of Japan, whatever its nationality may be or wherever it may be located, if the case relates to Japan or if the defendant has some legal nexus with Japan.
“tag” jurisdiction
Mere presence being sufficient for personal jurisdiction
Adjudicatory jurisdiction
refers to the power of a court to hear a case
Long-arm jurisdiction
A statutory grant of jurisdiction to local courts over foreign defendants
Subject matter jurisdiction
Refers to the types of claims or disputes over which a particular court has jurisdiction, or the power to render a decision.
Personal jurisdiction
The power of a court to require that a party (usually the defendant) or a witness come before the court. The court must have personal jurisdiction to enforce its judgments or orders against a party.
What are the 2 types of personal jurisdiction in the U.S.?
1) General jurisdiction
2) Specific jurisdiction
General jurisdiction
Exists when a party has extensive ("continuous and systematic") dealings with the forum administered by the court
Specific jurisdiction
Present when a party performed some activity in the territory without which the present action before the court could not have been brought.
What are the 3 types of jurisdiction described in the model for jurisdictional analysis?
1) Jurisdiction to prescribe
2) Jurisdiction to adjudicate
3) Jurisdiction to enforce
Jurisdiction to prescribe
A State's authority to make its substantive law applicable to particular persons and circumstances. Brings up “choice of law” question.
Jurisdiction to adjudicate
Defined as a State's authority to subject persons or things to the process of its courts
Jurisdiction to enforce
Deals with a State's authority to induce or compel compliance or to punish noncompliance with its laws or regulations
"minimum contacts"
Term used to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state.
"purposeful availment"
When a party knowingly enters into a situation where they could benefit from the laws of a particular forum.
What was the first case to deal with "specific jurisdiction" over an alien defendent?
What body of law (treaty) covers the jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in the EU?
Brussels Convention
...on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
What are 2 benefits of the Brussels Convention over US case law?
• Unlike World-Wide Volkswagen, Convention allows tort claimants to bring an action in the state where the injury occurs.
• Unlike Asahi, Convention makes ample room for multi-party litigation.
What are 2 common criticisms of the Brussels Convention?
• Discriminates against parties domiciled outside the Common Market
• Place of performance chosen as the jurisdictional nexus for contract litigation
Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation provides for jurisdiction in the courts of the state in which the ________ is domiciled. (termed “general jurisdiction” in this context)
What are the 3 rules of the Brussels Convention that are clearly established from Kalfelis v. Schroder?
1) Article 2 jurisdiction is more “general” than the rules of special jurisdiction;
2) the “special jurisdiction” rules (Articles 5-16) are to be narrowly interpreted; and
3) the rules of “special jurisdiction” are based on a “close connecting factor between the dispute and the courts”
Does the Brussels Convention provides for “special jurisdictions,” by virtue of which a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State may be sued in another Contracting State?
Yes, but this derogates from concept of “general jurisdiction”, however, and is thus interpreted restrictively
Is there a distinction between jurisdiction and venue in Europe?
Very little. In civil-law countries there is no concept of jurisdiction fundamentally distinct from venue. Therefore nothing exists in civil-law countries which could properly be called a long-arm statute.
With regard to jurisdiction, what provisions may be characterized as discriminating against foreigners in civil-law countries?
All civil-law systems have provisions creating jurisdiction over defendants neither residing within the jurisdiction nor having sufficient contact with the court’s district that would normally allow specific jurisdiction to be exercised.