Civpro Cases

Front 1

Pennoyer v. Neff

Back 1

In state process subjects one to personal jurisdiction & to satisfy in rem jurisdiction the land must be attached to the court before the trial.

Front 2

Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering

Back 2

Issue here was one of proper IRS handling. A claim that doesn't follow the "creation test" can be tried in federal court if the court decides that the state law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Front 3

Avitts v. Amoco

Back 3

An amended complaint that removes a federal question and was the original basis for removal, will subject the complaint to be remanded for lack of SMJ.

Front 4

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley

Back 4

Anticipation of a federal defense to a state claim is not enough to bring the state claim in federal court. Only the allegation in this case breach of K is used to determine arising under.

Front 5

Osborn v. Bank of the US

Back 5

Interepreted the constitution as granting jurisdiction if only an "ingredient of the original cause" is in the lawsuit.

Front 6

Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall

Back 6

"we hold that mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions"

Front 7

International Shoe v. State of Washington

Back 7

Established Minimum Contacts Test, for Corporations/People (1) Does D fall within Long Arm Statute (2) Has he purposely availed himself to the state (3) Does it arise out of his contacts with the state (4) Would it be unfair or unreasonable

Front 8

Shaffer v. Heitner

Back 8

Where, as in this case, the property serving as the basis for jurisdiction is completely unrelated to the plaintiff’s cause of action, the presence of the property alone, i.e., absent other ties among the defendant, the State, and the litigation, would not support the State’s jurisdiction.

Front 9

Gordon v. Steele

Back 9

Domicile: Established as Residence with Intent to remain indefinitely

Front 10

Asahi Metal Industries v. Superior Court of California

Back 10

Stream of Commerce, O'Connor, Brennan, O'Connor wants actual knowledge where it is going Brennan doesn't. 5 Rules (1) Is it a heavy Burden (2) Does the state have an interest (3) Is the state claim overly broad (4) Efficiency (5) How does it affect international relations

Front 11

Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz

Back 11

The Supreme Court concluded that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the protections of the forum state (Florida) and were, therefore, subject to jurisdiction there. The Court reasoned that the defendants had a "substantial and continuing" relationship with Burger King in Florida and that due process would not be violated because the defendants should have reasonably anticipated being summoned into court in Florida for breach of contract.

Front 12

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

Back 12

coming soon

Front 13

Piper Aircraft Co v. Reyno (private interests)

Back 13

Private Intersts The private-interest considerations include (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendants

Front 14

Piper Aircraft Co v. Reyno (public interests)

Back 14

The public-interest considerations include
• (1) the transferee's familiarity with the governing laws,
• (2) the relative congestion of the calendars of the potential transferee and transferor courts, and
• (3) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home

Front 15

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson

Back 15

Chattel is not your agent for service. Foreseeability that one product will be used in another state is not enough.

Front 16

McGee v. International Life Insurance Company

Back 16

California's interest in the case, and the fact that the contract was delivered to McGee in California was a enough of a substantial connection to the state.

Front 17

Hanson v. Denckla

Back 17

A party must have minimum contacts that are purposeful and deliberate with a state in order for the courts of that state to be able to exercise jurisdiction over that party.

Front 18

Mas v. Perry

Back 18

Complete Diversity: It is necessary to have complete diversity to be within federal court. Lousiana Case allowed to remain in federal court

Front 19

Swift v. Tyson

Back 19

The court held that the “laws of the several states” in the Act required federal courts to apply state statutory law but not state common law

Front 20

Gray v. American Radiator

Back 20

The long arm statute of Illinois was able to grab personal jurisdiction for a tortious act or omission in the state of Illinois for an injury occuring in Illinois because of faulty manufacturing outside of it.

Front 21

Bo Jackson v. California Newspapers Partnerships

Back 21

The Court held that defendants' operation of a website available to Illinois web surfers was insufficient to permit the Court to assert general jurisdiction over the defendants. "The mere maintenance of an Internet website is generally not sufficient to exercise general jurisdiction . . .".

Front 22

Calder v. Jones

Back 22

A state's courts could assert personal jurisdiction over the author or editor of a libelous article, where the author or editor knew that the article would be widely circulated in the state where the subject of the article would be injured by the libelous assertion.

Front 23

St. Paul Mercury v. Red Cab Co.

Back 23

It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.

Front 24

Olson Co. v. City of Winona

Back 24

Principal Place of Business for Corporate Domicile: Total Activity and Nerve Center, Court decided that significance of total activity in Mississippi outweighed corporate headquarters in Illinois

Front 25

Diefenthal v. C.A.B.

Back 25

Amount in Controversy, only not met if a jury could not reasonably reach a verdict of amount

Front 26

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire

Back 26

S. Ct. interpreted Art III § 2 as allowing diversity if there is minimal diversity

Front 27

Strawbridge v. Cutris

Back 27

Interpreted 28 USC 1332, requiring complete diversity, while the constitution in art III allows for minimal diversity.

Front 28

The Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.

Back 28

A counterclaim alleging a federal issue, in this case patent suit does make the original claim arise from federal law and is not a federal issue for the court

Front 29

Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.

Back 29

If case depends on a construction of Fedearl Law even if arises out of a state law claim then it is still a question of Federal law.

Front 30

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson

Back 30

A violation of a federal statute, as part of a claim, is not sufficient for the federal courts to claim original jurisdiction if the statute does not create a private remedies for violations of the statute.

Front 31

Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter

Back 31

Federal Law can apply in a state court ?

Front 32

Bell v. Hood

Back 32

Jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action under federal law. And that if it is found lacking it should be dismissed on the merits, not for lack of jurisdiction

Front 33

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Inc

Back 33

Because Hustler sold thousands of copies of Hustler magazine in NH, it was not unfair for them to expect to be hauled into court for a libelious story

Front 34

Young v. New Haven Advocate

Back 34

The internet newspaper was not desigend to attract or serve a Virginia audience but New Haven and thus was not subject to personal jurisdiction there.

Front 35

Hess v. Pawloski

Back 35

Old consent to personal jurisdiction case was fine under 14th amendment.

Front 36

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King

Back 36

King has done nothing to purposefully avail himself of the benefits of New York. King, like numerous others, simply created a Web site and permitted anyone who could find it to access it. Creating a site, like placing a product into the stream of commerce, may be felt nationwide-- or even worldwide-- but, without more, it is not an act purposefully directed towards the forum state.

Front 37

Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise

Back 37

Venue is proper if a "substantail amount" of the act(s) giving rise to the claim occurred there

Front 38

MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co.

Back 38

Again, must rely on Private and Public factors, including P and D choice, where arose, convenience, witneess and proof as well as governing laws, congestion and local interest

Front 39

Gonzalez v. Chrysler Corp

Back 39

Dismissed for Venue even though mexican court gave essentially no damages for the claim

Front 40

Rasoulzadeh v. Associated Press

Back 40

Venue was not dismissed because the lawsuit in IRAN would lead to the death of the person

Front 41

Hart v. Terminex International

Back 41

Part of Terminex was a partnership, and the partnership is domiciled where every partner lives, in this case some partners lived in Illinois and it killed SMJ

Front 42

Gulf Oil Corp v. Gilbert

Back 42

Again, must rely on Private and Public factors, including P and D choice, where arose, convenience, witneess and proof as well as governing laws, congestion and local interest

Front 43

B & W Taxi v. B & Y Taxi

Back 43

Odd case that allowed Federal court to not apply state common law by forum shopping of one cab company.

Front 44

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric MFG Co. Inc

Back 44

coming soon