Karla v. ThinCo Inc

Karla v. ThinCo Inc - Andrew Lazarow Karla v ThinCo Inc...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Andrew Lazarow 9/20/10 Karla v. ThinCo Inc. IRAC ThinCo Inc. produces a weight loss drug which was being sold in New York by retail stores. The weight loss drug, Thinster, caused Karla to have a ruptured spleen, which led to $90,000 in hospital bills. Karla wants to sue ThinCo Inc., but needs to know which state courts would have state court jurisdiction her case, Karla v ThinCo Inc. For a state court to have jurisdiction over a case it must have both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. For there to be personal jurisdiction the defendant must be domicile, present, receive consent, have property in the state, or be performing an activity in the state. To be domicile in a state means that the defendant’s primary residence or company head quarters is located in that state. For presence in a state to give the case personal jurisdiction the defendant must be an individual, not a corporation, and must be physically present in the state while being served with the lawsuit. When the prosecutor receives consent it means that both parties agree on
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/18/2012 for the course LPP 255 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Syracuse.

Page1 / 2

Karla v. ThinCo Inc - Andrew Lazarow Karla v ThinCo Inc...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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