Civ Pro I Outline - Civ Pro I Outline I Introduction a...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

Civ Pro I Outline I. Introduction a. Court Systems b. Litigation Overview II. Personal Jurisdiction a. Hot to determine personal jurisdiction: i. Statutory analysis (long arm statutes) ii. Constitutional analysis 1. Minimum Contacts a. Purposeful availment b. Relatedness (general vs. specific) c. foreseeability 2. Reasonableness factors a. D’s last chance b. P’s interest c. Burden on D d. Space e. Interstate commerce f. Policy b. What state to sue in c. Doesn’t apply to P, just D d. Definition- The power of a given court to issue a judgment that is binding on a person or effects his property (what state) e. The Historical Predicate- Pennoyer v. Neff i. Key Question- Is it there? ii. Concerned w/ state lines iii. To get personal jurisdiction- could have attached the property iv. Jurisdiction 1. In personam- jurisdiction over the person 2. In rem- jurisdiction over the property 3. Quasi in rem- nothing to do w/ the lawsuit, judgment limited to value of property v. Even if someone has actual notice of lawsuit doesn’t mean there is personal jurisdiction vi. If served in the state, that’s personal jurisdiction- even in the airspace (transient or “tag” jurisdiction) vii. Under Pennoyer, a court has PJ over a party when: 1. Waiver- Party appears in court (don’t have today) or 2. Party consents to jurisdiction or 3. Party is served w/ process in the state (transient jurisdiction) or 4. Party has property in the state (but only to extent that property is attached pre-suit and up to value of property) (quasi in rem) or 1
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

5. Domicile- not necessarily where you live, the place you were born (or vote, have driver’s license, bank account, dorm or house?) viii. Problems w/ Pennoyer 1. Too Strict ix. Hess v. Palowski 1. Implied consent- being In the state gives consent f. The Modern Construct i. Minimum Contacts 1. International Shoe Co. v. Washington a. To subject a nonresident D to in personam jurisdiction, there must be “certain minimum contacts w/ the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” b. Now the question is- Is it Fair? c. Look at quality and nature of contacts d. Look at inconvenience caused by having to travel away from home e. Divested the “implied consent” and “corporate presence” concepts of their special significance, focusing instead on the activities carried on in the forum of the state. f. Holding based on “quid pro quo” logic i. A corporation conducting activities in a state enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state- so it is fair to impose on the corporation obligations that arise out of or are connected w/ the activities in the sate g. Modified Pennoyer’s requirement of instate service of process for in personam jurisdiction, finding service of process in International Shoe outside of forum state to be valid- most corporations have a registered agent h. Key concept: The more closely related the D’s contacts to the claim, the fewer contacts are required to comport with substantial justice and fair play i. Shaffer v. Heitner
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Winter '06
  • Moore
  • federal court

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern