This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc. (pg 6) –Cased dismissed under 12(b)(1) – lack of subject matter jurisdiction-P claims to have diversity jurisdiction because the parties are residents of two different cases. Parties: P = Hawkins for estate of Cereal. Cereal – a man who was killed in a traffic accident with D. D = Masters Farms - The owner of the tractor that collided with Cereal’s car Proc. History : Cereal (P) brought action in federal ct regarding his death that was a result of a traffic accident with a Masters Farms tractor. Cereal alleged diversity jurisdiction. Masters Farms (D) disputes diversity jurisdiction. Masters Farms made a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Facts : D is citizen of KS. At time of death, P was living with wife in KS and had lots of KS connections but also still had connections with MO (where he’d previously lived with his mother). Holding : No, the district ct does not have jurisdiction because the parties are both residents of Kansas. Cereal was resident of KS because he had established a physical presence there and he displayed intention to remain there. His connections w/ MO are not sufficient to overcome evidence showing his intent to remain in KS. Masters Farms (D) motion is granted. The claim cannot be brought in federal ct because fed ct has no subject matter jurisdiction. Rule : A person is a resident of the state in which he is “domiciled.” Established by physical presence in a place in connection w/ a certain state of mind conserning one’s intent to remain there PERSONAL JURISDICTION PJ – is on exam, but it will not be something that you discuss for an extended period of time, Q should be easy- yes or no answer, min contacts and FPSJ or there is PJ since person is a resident (4 or 5 sentence paragraph) Specific Jurisdiction- on separate hand out General Jurisdiction Burnham v. Superior Ct ( Scalia, Chief Justice, Kennedy, (White –only joined Pts: I, II(A) (B) (C)) FACTS : Burnhams lived in NJ. They agreed they would get a divorce and file under “irreconcilable differences”. Wife moved, with kids to CA. Husband (petitioner) filed divorce under “desertion” and would not change it to what was agreed upon, so wife brought suit for divorce in CA. Husband was served while on a business trip and visiting his children. HOLDING AND REASONING : Part II (B) à St’s ability to have jurisdiction over anyone found w/in its border is one of most firmly established principals of PJ (C) à petitioner’s argument shows misunderstanding of Int’l Shoe, Int’l Shoe has nothing to do with not being able to have PJ over those who are present in state (D) à Shaffer misunderstood, Shaffer , like Int’l Shoe , involved jurisdiction over absent D. Shaffer hold, if min contacts are to be established using property in st then prop has to be related to litigation-petitioner took it to mean that all bases for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction (inc. in-state service) should be subjected to min contacts standard under...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/12/2008 for the course LAW 5303 taught by Professor Krakoff during the Fall '05 term at Colorado.
- Fall '05