Personal Jurisdiction

Front 1

Why are judgments rendered against a defendant over whom a court lacks personal jurisdiction invalid?

Back 1

because the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendment gives protections such that a D must be granted proper forum. Only a court which has personal jurisdiction is considered proper forum.

Front 2

What is the relationship between whether a state court would have personal jurisdiction (power over a person) and whether a federal court located in the same state would have personal jurisdiction?

Back 2

The same for now

Front 3

Why does a court always have personal jurisdiction over a plaintiff?

Back 3

This is because the π chooses the forum. They are therefore, submitting power to any jurisdiction in which they file the claim. The protection of appropriate forum is waivable. UNLIKE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONS, PERSONAL JURISDICTIONS ARE WAIVABLE

Front 4

Can π sue D in California if there is NO connection to the controversy at all.

Back 4

Nonetheless if D went to California and service of process occurred in California by π, π can sue. VALID SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A FOREGIN STATE IS ALMOST GUARANTEED TO GIVE THAT FOREIGN STATE JURISDICTION OVER D.

Front 5

What is a. In personam jurisdiction?

Back 5

Jurisdiction over the person (defendant). If D fails to pay judgment against him, the π may execute the judgment and have the court seize D’s property for auction. Furthermore, through the Full Faith and Credit principle any state may domesticate the order and fulfill the judgment in that state. Garnishing wages is a possibility with this type of jurisdiction.

Front 6

What is In rem jurisdiction?

Back 6

very rare but is seen in admiralty cases. This deals with jurisdiction over the OWNERSHIP of a property that the court has jurisdiction over. The ownership is determined as it applies to every person in the world.

Front 7

What is Quasi-in-rem-1 jurisdiction?

Back 7

basically the same as in rem except it involves the ownership as it applies to the parties.

Front 8

What is Quasi-in-rem-2 jurisdiction?

Back 8

This is simply an alternative if jurisdiction in personum is not possible. If the court may have jurisdiction over a property, they can exercise power over that property even if the dispute has nothing to do with the property. However, it can only exercise power over the property that it has jurisdiction over. (for instance: if D has land in FL and NY, a NY court can only auction of the NY property to satisfy judgment)

Front 9

What is Full Faith and Credit?

Back 9

the principle in which any state must honor the judgments of other states if decided in personum. This is what is relied on if the property in the judgment state is not enough to satisfy judgment and the D has property in another state.

Front 10

What is the difference between seizure of property for satisfaction of a valid in personam judgment, and seizure of property for purposes of in rem or quasi-in-rem jurisdiction?

Back 10

- The only real difference is that for in personum judgments, seizure of property may be ruled by the principle of Full Faith and credit
- In rem, the OWNERSHIP of the property that serves as the jurisdictional predicate is disputed and the judgment is binding on the world
- QIR-1 also deals with the OWNERSHIP of the jurisdictional predicate, however it only binds the parties involved in the dispute
- QIR-2 only seizes the property to satisfy the judgment. If the property in the state that has jurisdiction is not enough to satisfy judgment, there is nothing else that can be done. Full Faith and Credit does not apply for Quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.

Front 11

Why would plaintiff generally prefer to secure a valid judgment in personam than a valid judgment in rem or quasi-in-rem?

Back 11

In personum, binds the person. There are alternatives for collecting that are not present in the other ways, such as the application of the full faith and credit principle and garnishing of wages.

Front 12

Why are both a statutory and a constitutional analysis necessary to determine whether a court can validly assert personal jurisdiction?

Back 12

Power to exercise jurisdiction under the constitution is not self-executing. The “due process circle” is narrowed in its applicability by statutes

Front 13

What is a long-arm statute?

Back 13

Statutes that give a court jurisdiction over non-residents.

Front 14

In Pennoyer two lawsuits existed within, to bring it about. What were the names.

Back 14

1) Mitchell v. Neff
2) Pennoyer v. Neff

Front 15

How did the case of Mitchell v. Neff come about?

Back 15

Neff owed Mitchell money for legal services. Neff moved to Cali. Mitchell filed a claim in Oregon State Court for the owed money, used quasi-in-rem jurisdiction (type 2). Notice was published in a local newspaper. Neff never saw notice. Never showed up for court date, default judgment. Land was seized and sold at auction. Mitchell bought land at auction and sold it to Pennoyer.

Front 16

How did Pennoyer v. Neff come about?

Back 16

Neff came back from California and saw Pennoyer living on his land. He heard the story about the suit and the auction. Filed suit against Pennoyer for the land in Oregon Federal Court (diversity jurisdiction)

Front 17

What was at issue in both suits?

Back 17

1) Whether the money owed to Mitchell by Neff was legitimate
2) Whether the judgment in Mitchell v. Neff was valid

Front 18

What happened in each lawsuit?

Back 18

1) Default judgment for Mitchell
2) Judgment for Neff. (Trial court mentioned the problem was the notice, Supreme court gave different reason)

Front 19

Why did the Supreme Court rule for Neff in the second suit?

Back 19

The property being used as the jurisdictional predicate was not attached at the outset of litigation but after judgment was rendered.

Front 20

What type of personal jurisdiction was at issue in Pennoyer?

Back 20

QIR-2

Front 21

Why did the Court hold that the Oregon court did not have that jurisdiction?

Back 21

State court had no power of Neff or Neff’s property. Because in order to enter a valid judgment over a person through their property, that land must be first seized by the court or the court has no power to render judgment over that party. For example, if the court had not seized the property and it was sold by Neff during the proceeding, there would be no land owned by Neff and QIR-2 would not be valid!

Front 22

Why Couldn’t the Oregon court serve Neff in California?

Back 22

During the time of Neff, no state can enter direct jurisdiction over people outside its boundaries.

Front 23

What's the relationship between due process and personal jurisdiction?

Back 23

Due process is the guide of personal jurisdiction. It is the concept that creates and guides personal jurisdiction is the necessity of courts exercising due process of the law as required by the 5th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Front 24

In Pennoyer, the Court made clear that in personam jurisdiction could be established by consent, domicile, presence, and doing business. What would be an example of each?

Back 24

1) Consent-->a D shows up to a trial
2) Domicile-->permanent residence. Physical presence and intent to remain there
3) Presence-->being served with process within the state
4) Doing Business--> Conducting transactions and forms of business and commerce within the forum state.

Front 25

The Court also discussed personal service of process, and constructive service of process. What would be an example of each?

Back 25

- Personally being handed service of process (complaint and a summons)
- Constructive- publication in a newspaper
o Constructive service of process is allowed when NOT dealing with in-personum jurisdiction

Front 26

What did the Court mean when it wrote that "a state may 'authorize proceedings to determine the status of one of its citizens toward a nonresident, which would be binding within the State, though made without service of process or personal notice to the nonresident.'"? (p. 59).

Back 26

The book talks about marital status and the court is talking about divorce. This is purely Dicta. For ex. A resident of Oregon can get a divorce without the other person in another state present. The justification for this would be it would leave abandoned citizens no way to get a divorce if their spouses fled. This separated divorce proceedings from in personum jurisdiction.

Front 27

What was the holding of Harris v. Balk? What did it add to the law of personal jurisdiction after Pennoyer?

Back 27

In Harris v. Balk an individual was able to recover a debt from another (who was out of the state and did not own any land in the forum state) by claiming QIR-2 jurisdiction over his debtor. This expanded the Pennoyer case by allowing QIR-2 jurisdiction to extend to intangible property as well as tangible.

Front 28

In what way did the Court adopt Pennoyer in Hess v. Palowski to apply to the modern world?

Back 28

The court used the jurisdictional predicate of consent. It upheld a long-arm statute that is commonly seen today, which coerces upon a non-resident foreign motorist entering a state an implied consent to appoint an agent in that state. The agent being an officer at the DMV. Service of process may be served on that agent and notice mailed to the non-resident. Since the constitution does not prohibit a state from excluding a motor vehicle from entering its state it can apply a quid pro quo sort of exchange, where if you want to enter our state you consent to being sued in our state via an agent at the DMV.

Front 29

On what basis does Milliken v. Meyer uphold personal jurisdiction? What is the quid pro quo in that situation?

Back 29

- Milliken v. Meyer played around with the residence requirement from Pennoyer and assumed they were referring to domicile. Milliken upheld in personum jurisdiction over a domiciliary even though the defendant was not personally served with process in the forum.
- The quid pro quo situation is a “this for that” when one takes up domicile in a state, she gets certain privileges and benefits from the state and in exchange he/she should be amenable to jurisdiction in the state’s court.

Front 30

In what way was Milliken v. Meyer a significant departure from prior personal jurisdiction cases?

Back 30

The case involved a domiciliary of the forum who was absent from the state. The D was not personally served but was still subject to in personum jurisdiction

Front 31

What was the question presented to the Court in International Shoe v. Washington?

Back 31

Whether a corporation with no employees in a state, no business conducted in the state, no land in the state, no presence, and no shipping to the state can be considered for in personum jurisdiction. (court answered yes, shoe had engaged in solicitation among other activities in the state and had minimum contacts with the state)

Front 32

What changed with International Shoe? Is Pennoyer still good law?

Back 32

- International shoe established the minimum contacts test. It also allowed for a company without an actual presence in a state to be held to in personum jurisdiction.
- Brennan and O'Connor dispute this exact question in Burnham v. Superior Court

Front 33

Try to come up with an example (other than the ones Freer suggests) for cases that would fall into each of Freer's four boxes on p. 72.

Back 33

Box 1- Domiciled in NY and dispute arises in NY

Box 2- A sells something to B and then they both get into car accident in another state

Box 3- An individual has a timeshare in FL and someone slips and falls in that timeshare. Someone can sue you in NY because you have domicile in NY. The domicile is completely unrelated to the cause of action.

Box 4- Car accident, you drive into NJ once, you get into a car accident, you can be sued in NJ.

Front 34

What was the important factor that each of McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957), and Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1956), added to our understanding of the modern formula for personal jurisdiction?

Back 34

- Mcgee and Hanson combine to help us understand the concept of minimum contacts.
- Mcgee required only a single contact between π and D, so long as the cause of action arose out of that contact with the forum state (the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with the forum)
o The case also looked into the conveniences of the parties, it was much more convenient for D to travel to π, rather than the other way around
- Hanson introduced the concept of “purposeful availment”, which was the necessity of a D to purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law. This was necessary for a D to held amenable to the forum state’s jurisdiction. D in this case DID NOT.
o In order to comply with due process the D had to purposeful avail itself to the forum state.
o Unilateral activity can not satisfy the requirement of contact with forum state. (just because one party moves to a state and the parties continue to do business it does not establish minimum contacts in that manner)
- FACTS AND REASONING ARE IMPORTANT. PROF SAID EXAM MAY HAVE FACT PATTERN SIMILAR TO THESE CASES AND WE MUST KNOW HOW TO REASON THROUGH IT LIKE A LAWYER

Front 35

Freer suggests that there are some who believe Hanson was, in fact, a stronger case for upholding personal jurisdiction than McGee. Why do you think some might believe that?

Back 35

Because in Mcgee the π was making payments to the D and there was no actual business relationship with the Forum state that wasn’t forced by π. In Hanson the D was sending payments to the π in the forum state and continuing business willfully. This seems to make out a better case of having minimum contacts than in Mcgee.

Front 36

True or false: After World-Wide Volkswagen, it is clear that personal jurisdiction can be supported if a case meets either of the fairness inquiry or the contact inquiry. Why?

Back 36

False. It seems based on World-Wide Volkswagen that the purposes of each prong of the minimum contacts test (interpreted from the constitution) is very clear. HOWEVER, fairness considerations are only relevant AFTER the court finds a relevant contact. Therefore, relevant contact is considered an absolute prerequisite.
o Relevent contact-determined by purposeful availment- meant to protect D’s from litigation in an unduly burdensome forum
o Fair play and substantial justice- determined by such things as unilateral activities and simply how fair it is to make litigant amenable to forum state- meant to protect the D from litigation in an inappropriate forum. (5 considerations on pg.79)

Front 37

What did Voltswagen add to our understanding of international shoe?

Back 37

- Forseeability (not of your good being shipped there but SUIT being brought there)
o What did the Court mean by that? not of your good being shipped there but SUIT being brought there. Prof has a problem with this because the only way to forsee such a thing is if the Supreme Court rules a certain way and you forsee that ruling being applied.
o Forseeable by the nature of the D’s activity that he may be held to jurisdiction in the forum state

Front 38

What is the Calder-effects test? Why is it important

Back 38

- The Calder-effects test is a test used in the case Calder v. Jones where the court established that the relevant contact between the D and the forum can be established not only by the D going to the forum and doing something there, but by D intentionally causing an effect there.
- Even though D did not go to Claifornia, by their actions they intentionally reached out to California (they defamed a California resident)
- This is important because it establishes a firm rule that people only saw as possible before. Now the D can have no actual contact with the forum state so long as they sent something there with the intention of having an effect, in personum jurisdiction may be claimed.

Front 39

Freer finds an inconsistency in the results in Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978) and Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 770 (1984). How so? What do you think?

Back 39

In Kulko the father sent his daughter to California for the exact purpose of living there and placing the burden of expenses on the California parent raising her there. This would not be the case using the Calder’s test accurately.
- Once the child grows up and begins paying taxes she will have a large effect on the state, furthermore her education as a youth and into her adult years will put a strain on the California public school system. She is having a direct effect on the State. Therefore, I agree with Freer and believe that the Calders-effect test should warrant jurisdiction in California for the Kulko case.

Front 40

Freer says that in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), the contacts were "overwhelming," so the Court had an opportunity to focus on the fairness element of the personal jurisdiction test. How so?

Back 40

- There were two ways that the court found relevant contact was not an issue and was obvious even though D never visited Florida (the forum state)
o D entered into a multi-million (20 million) contract with a company based in Florida. All decisions were made by the headquarters in Miami.
 Both parties were sophisticated businessmen and he should have known
o The contract signed by the parties expressly provided that disputes would be governed by Florida law, which is another example of the Ds availing themselves of Florida.
 This does not mean that all disputes had to be in Florida, this is a law-selection clause. Any court in the US would have to apply Florida law
 Forum selection would dictate that the case must be held in a specific forum

Front 41

2. In Burger King, the Court states that "'[t]he facts of each case must [always] be weighed' in determining whether personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice.'" [citing Kulko]

- How specific should the factual inquiry be? What are the drawbacks to fact-specific inquiries?

Back 41

 The test applied by the courts happen to require a very fact-specific analysis when determining the disadvantage of the D and the weight against the unfairness factor and whether it qualifies to be unconstitutionally fair.
 The court stated that D must show that litigation in the forum is “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party unfairly is at a severe disadvantage in comparison to his opponent.” This requires a situational analysis of both parties in the situation. BURDEN ON D to prove unfairness.
 Having such a fact-specific inquiry will put unnecessary strains on the judicial system as every matter must make it to trial. Furthermore, a problem involving adequate notice arises. How is a π supposed to know whether the forum has jurisdiction over the D in the situation or not?

Front 42

In the Shoe test, what is "fairness"? What is "justice"? Is there a difference? How do you know it when you see it? How are courts to know it?

Back 42

- International shoe touched upon the “fairness” area simply by saying an “estimate of the inconveniences” imposed upon the D by jurisdiction in the forum was a relevant consideration.
- It was also dealt with when creating the scale between relatedness and level of activity as a means of determining whether minimum contacts existed with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- Those terms fair play and substantial justice were never really defined and the courts interpreted these phrases in subsequent cases as seen in Burger King, which is a very fact-specific approach in determining fairness.

Front 43

Who has the burden to demonstrate unfairness? What are the justice/fairness implications of that burden?

Back 43

- The D has the burden of proving unfairness.
- The court interpreted substantial justice as an individual determination on each set of facts, individual justice.

Front 44

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) and the Stream of Commerce

5. Given the cases we have discussed about in personam jurisdiction, what's the reasoning for the argument that if A in state X sells a component part to B in state Y, who uses that part to create a product that she cells to C in state Z, and something in the component part malfunctions and produces injury in state Z, C should be able to sue A in state Z?

Back 44

- Two separate opinions have arisen because of Asahi regarding the stream of commerce and required contacts. (fairness has been undisputed)
o Purposeful availment requires “additional conduct” other than the passivity of their part being retailed as part of another product. There must exist an “intent to serve the market in the forum state”. This does not exist for A, who makes no contact, has no advertisement, establishes no customer support, and makes no claims in State Z.
o A purposefully avails itself by the benefit of their product being retailed in State Z. The fact stands that if B did not ship products to C, then A would not sell as many of their product. Sufficient contact exists between A and State Z because A derives economic benefit from the sale of their product in State Z (albeit indirectly)

Front 45

Given the cases we have discussed about in personam jurisdiction, by what reasoning might one reach the opposite conclusion?

Back 45

- In Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. the opposite conclusion was reached because company A was benefitting economically from the sale of their product in State Z and were therefore subject to jurisdiction in State Z. The key was whether it was forseeable that company A would get sued there. The answer is yes.
- Calders-effect test? Company A knows and intends for their parts to be incorporated into B’s product and sold to C in State Z. Therefore they intend to have an effect in State Z and therefore should be held to jurisdiction there. Possibly

Front 46

Why would the plaintiffs in Shaffer v. Heitner have had reason to be fairly confident that the Delaware court had quasi-in-rem II personal jurisdiction over defendants?

Back 46

Because Harris v. Balk said that you can have QIR-2 over intangible property

Front 47

Is Harris v. Balk still good law1? Why or why not?

Back 47

- The court stated that all assertions of jurisdiction must be evaluated in light of international shoe
- Extended minimum contacts test to QIR jurisdiction
- NOT good law. Although in in rem or QIR-1 the land can be jurisdictional predicate, there must be minimum contacts and fairness factors for all.
o Does this mean we don’t use QIR jurisdiction anymore?
 We will discuss next week.
- The argument for jurisdiction is that the directors were employed and worked at a Delaware corporation so how was there no minimum contacts. The majority stated that since the jurisdictional predicate was the stocks and the ownership interest it was not related at all to the cause of action. If they filed for in personum jurisdiction through contact by doing business, the result would be different. But the majority rejected that saying what was done was done and there was no jurisdiction since the cause of action and the jurisdictional predicate were UNRELATED.

Front 48

Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990)

In Burnham, all nine justices agreed that California had personal jurisdiction over Mr. Burnham, but disagreed profoundly on why. How so?

Back 48

- The court was split 4-4 with Justice Stevens abstaining (BURNHAM DID NOT NECESSARILY AFFIRM PENNOYER)
o Scalia (to which most courts agree)- Transient Jurisdiction (service in the forum) is sufficient to hold the D to in personum jurisdiction.
 Broad language in Shaffer was dismissed since the international shoe test is only applied when the D is “outside the forum state”.
o Brennan- International Shoe’s test of contact and fair play must be assessed before determining that jurisdiction is constitutional.

Front 49

Why did burnham think he had a case to begin with, if he was served in the forum state?

Back 49

Because Shaffer v. Heitner stated that all minimum contacts and jurisdiction questions must be analyzed through international shoe

Front 50

How do the justices differ in their views of the relevance of International Shoe to transient jurisdiction?

Back 50

- Scalia’s opinion about transient jurisdiction showed that the rules of pennoyer still somewhat ruled and that International Shoe was a supplement to Pennoyer and expanded upon it. This opinion was relied on the history of personal jurisdiction and accepted service of process as the basis for in personum jurisdiction. INTERNATIONAL SHOE WAS ONLY TO BE APPLIED IF THE D IS NOT PRESENT IN THE FORUM.
- Brennan’s opinion took Shaffer to mean that ALL matters of personal jurisdiction must be evaluated through International Shoe and therefore, minimum contacts test must be assessed. Freer says there doesn’t seem to be a way for transient jurisdiction to be denied since under this theory, the D is gaining the benefits of the State in 3 ways
o Health and Safety of the transient are protected by the state’s police and other services
o The transient is free to travel in the state
o The transient “likely enjoys the fruits” of the state’s economy as well.

Front 51

What guidance does Burnham give us as to how future cases might be decided?

Back 51

Burnham does not guide us. Because of Justice Stevens abstaining from a tie breaker, there is no rule set down firmly. However, we can say generally as a rule the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a D based on his voluntary presence in the forum will satisfy the requirements of due process.

Front 52

What is General Jurisdiction?

Back 52

- General jurisdiction involves claims where the cause of action is not related to the contacts with the forum state but the D has SUFFICIENT [ “continuous and systematic” when applying shoe test as Brennan Does, service of process is enough for Scalia] contacts with the forum state, sufficient to be considered minimum contacts.
- When you can be sued in that forum for a cause of action that arises anywhere in the world.
o International shoe- where the contacts are sufficiently continuous and systematic, a cause of action can arise anywhere in the world.

Front 53

Why was Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) not a specific jurisdiction case?

Back 53

- The cause of action was regarding an event that occurred in the Philippines while the forum state was Ohio. The contacts found in this case were sufficient since the Philippine corporation set up an office and bank accounts in Ohio. The court found that the corp. conducted a “continuous and systematic,” but limited, part of its general business in Ohio.
- No related, high contacts=general jurisdiction

Front 54

Why was Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) not a specific jurisdiction case?

Back 54

- This case was regarding an incident that occurred in Columbia while the forum state was Texas. Therefore the cause of action and the contact with the state were not related and the contacts were in question here making it general jurisdiction.
- The court ultimately found that contacts were NOT “continuous and systematic” and jurisdiction was not upheld.
o I disagree with this decision, pg.99
- The supreme court found that there was no jurisdiction
- IT WAS NEITHER A GENERAL JURISDICTION CASE NOR SINCE JURISDICTION WAS NOT GRANTED.

Front 55

What guidance do these cases give lower courts as to when general jurisdiction is available?

Back 55

- One thing to take away from these cases is that what matters when determining “continuous and systematic” contacts is whether the OPERATION of the corp. takes place in the forum state. Transactions with the forum state seem to not really matter as seen in Helicopteros.
- Many academics believe there is a quantitative (the percentage of business done) and qualitative (the type of business done) assessment when determining minimum contacts.

Front 56

What does Burnham have to do with general jurisdiction?

Back 56

- Burnham was a general jurisdiction case. The cause of action regarding child support payments arose outside the forum state, however contacts were sufficient to uphold jurisdiction in California.
- Scalia reasoned simply that he was served with process in Cali and therefore held to the courts in Cali. Brennan and 3 other justices said that Mr. Burnhams presence in Cali meant that he was benefiting from the state by:
o Health and Safety of the transient are protected by the state’s police and other services
o The transient is free to travel in the state
o The transient “likely enjoys the fruits” of the state’s economy as well.
- Therefore, the court held he was subject to general in personum jurisdiction.

Front 57

What don't we know about general jurisdiction?!?

Back 57

- There is no concrete rules set down as to how to analyze vague terms such as “continuous and systematic”, “sufficient contacts”, “attenuating contacts”, or the details of the quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Front 58

What, if any, relevance does the International Shoe minimum contacts test have to whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on a cause of action that arises in cyberspace?

Back 58

- It has a lot to do with it. The court has created a sliding scale (in Zippo) based on the amount of contacts with the forum state to analyze whether jurisdiction exists.
o Active websites- a lot of contact with state since people from forum state can sign up on site, order things from site, make transactions with site.
o Passive websites- not much contact since people from the forum state can only see the information and do nothing really more online. This is for informational sites
o Interactive sites- this is in between and the amount of contacts with the forum state will direct whether jurisdiction is constitutional or not.

Front 59

What relevance does the Calder-effects have to the above analysis?

Back 59

- Even if a person has full contact with the website, does not necessarily mean that the site was directed for use with that person? No.
- The Calders-effects test makes it clear that if there was an intended effect to the forum state than jurisdiction could be granted. However in Revell v. Lidow, jurisdiction was denied even though the π had contact with the interactive website because the D did not direct their website activities to have an effect in the forum state. There existed no intent to cause an effect in the forum state and therefore, it failed the Calder-effects test. This showed you can have contacts with the forum state but that is not considered substantial for the purpose of satisfying minimum contacts if it fails the Calders-effects test.

Front 60

What is the Zippo sliding scale test for determining personal jurisdiction?

Back 60

- The court has created a sliding scale (in Zippo) based on the amount of contacts with the forum state to analyze whether jurisdiction exists.
o Active websites- a lot of contact with state since people from forum state can sign up on site, order things from site, make transactions with site.
o Passive websites- not much contact since people from the forum state can only see the information and do nothing really more online. This is for informational sites
o Interactive sites- this is in between and the amount of contacts with the forum state will direct whether jurisdiction is constitutional or not.

Front 61

How can one justify the result in Revell v. Lidov, in light of Calder?

Back 61

- Calder set out the test that stated intent to have an effect in the forum state is necessary to satisfy minimum contacts with the state. In Calder this was present, which differs from Revell in that no intent to have an effect in the forum state existed. Therefore, the rulings are different and while jurisdiction was upheld in Calder, it was not in Revell
- The results are very consistant

Front 62

Why was Gator.com Corp v. L.L. Bean, Inc., a general jurisdiction case?

Back 62

- This was general jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise out of contacts with the forum state. The cause of action was regarding ads on the website that is owned and operated by a Maine company.
- Contacts were analyzed in this case to determine whether jurisdiction could be upheld. It was found that D, LL Bean, had active website activities-including sending emails to California customers and accepting order from California-constituted such commercial activity that it approximated physical presence in that state.

Front 63

17. Freer notes that decisions reflect the schism between the O'Connor and Brennan opinions in Asahi. What is the relevance of the stream of commerce analysis to internet jurisdiction?

Back 63

- In a stream of commerce the thing may pass through many places, but may be acted upon only by persons in some of these places.
o This is extremely true for internet websites. It is available worldwide but only some will even see it, let alone actively engage in the website
- Under Brennan’s argument the product getting into the forum state is enough to establish minimum contacts
o For a website this would ALWAYS be true since it is available world-wide and it can theoretically get into any state
- Under O’Connor’s argument; foreseeability of the product entering the forum state was not enough, there had to be something more- such as marketing, support, or profit made- in the forum state to establish a relevant contact with the forum.
o This would be more pragmatically applicable to the internet realm. The court clearly adopted this in Zippo when creating the sliding scale, since Active websites allow for jurisdiction but Passive websites do not (since their mere presence and informational activity do not constitute contact).

Front 64

NOTES ON THE ISSUE:

Back 64

- General and specific jurisdiction can apply to any type of Personal jurisdiction. It is simply a way that a court can have jurisdiction. So you can have specific/general jurisdiction for in rem or quasi in-rem cases. What really matters is whether the cause of action arose out of contacts with the forum state and whether the D has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.
- Post-Schaffer we will almost always be talking about in personum cases
- On an exam analyze both general and specific.