14739206-REAL-Civil-Procedure-Outline - Civil Procedure...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Civil Procedure Outline Fall 2007 Due Process Clauses I. Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) A) In Personam Jurisdiction (over the D herself) 1) General In Personam a. Can be sued in the forum on a claim that arose ANYWHERE in the world 2) Specific In Personam a. D is being sued on a claim that has SOME connection with a forum b. Arose from … some incident in the jurisdiction 3) Constitutional Limits of In Personam a. Pennoyer v. Neff Raw Power (i) Raw physical power, state's power over people and things inside the state; gives us traditional basis for PJ : (a) Served with Process in Forum (gen. juris.) - PRESENCE (present at time) (b) D's Agent was Served with Process in Forum (c) D is Domiciled in the Forum (gen. juris.) (d) Consent (can always waive) b. Hess v. Paloski Implied Consent Service on Agent (sec. of state) (i) Rule : Service of process on State Official for out-of-state D is acceptable when specific jurisdiction exists (ii) 1926 - automobile accident in MASS, D gets out of state; MASS had non-resident motor vehicle act - appointing state official as agent for service of process, spec. juris. - based on Pennoyer concept of power; implied consent - SC expanding (iii) Implied Consent - i.e. driving in state is appointing agent in state c. International Shoe Contacts + Fairness (i) 2 Parts to Test : (a) Contact (b) Fairness (c) “D has such minimum contacts with the forum, exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (ii) Int’l Shoe Notes (a) SC giving NEW DOCTRINAL FORMULA (b) Test is very flexible - expand PJ, amorphous (c) Now clear can serve process OUTSIDE the forum state (d) Does NOT overrule Pennoyer v. Neff (e) This is test if PERSONAL SERVICE does not occur in the state d. McGee v. International Life Nature of Contact (1 contact with outside state CA - SC says PJ) (i) Solicited - D solicited contract from California (ii) Relatedness - Ps claim "arose directly from contact with state (CA)" (iii) State Interest - CA had statute to protect citizens 4) Limiting Constitutional Jurisdiction a. Hanson v. Deckling Purposeful Availment
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
(i) Purposeful Availment - To be a relevant, D must "avail" self to D, unilateral act over a 3rd party (ii) Donner from Penn, enters trust w/ DE bank, Donner moves to FL, but continues bank interest while in FL, but DE wants PJ b. Worldwide Volkswagen Reaching Out to the Forum (if contacts not sufficient) (i) Robinsons - move from NY to go to AZ, in OK they have accident, sue in OK - allege that car was defective, sue 4 Ds, clear that 2 worked, unclear over… (ii) Worldwide - only does business in CT, NY, and NJ (iii) Seaway Motors - only did business in NY (iv) SC says NO - B/C no relevant contact, did not "reach out" to OK , no reaching out to state (v) Foreseeability - relevant to PJ, but not enough to see that PRODUCT TO STATE, must be
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 38

14739206-REAL-Civil-Procedure-Outline - Civil Procedure...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online