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

Download Document
Showing pages : 1 - 2 of 22
This preview has blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version! View Full Document
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
Background image of page 1
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
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.