Question | Answer |
Traditional Basis of Personal JX | 1. Consent 2. Residence 3. Presence 4. Agent |
Milliken (PJ) | an individual is subject to in personam jurisdiction in his domicile, regardless of whether he was absent from the state at the time |
Hess (PJ) | an individual is subject to in personam jurisdiction in his domicile, regardless of whether he was absent from the state at the time |
International Shoe (PJ) | "minimum contacts" such that jx is consistent w/ "traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice." D must “purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activ. within State, invoking benefits/protections of its laws. |
McGee (PJ) (TX => CA) | a single contact is sufficient if the claims arises out of the contact (re-issuance "solicitation" of insurance policy) |
Gray (PJ) | a company that places a product into the "stream of commerce" derives a benefit from the sale of the product such that the use of the product is sufficient contact w/ the state |
World Wide | the "stream of commerce" ends where the product is purchased; it must be foreseeable that D’s conduct and connection w/ forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there |
Hanson (PJ) (Delaware Trust) | unilateral activity cannot satisfy the requirement of contact w/ the forum state; defendant must "purposefully avail" himself of the forum state |
Fairness Factors to Assess AFTER min. contacts established | 1. burden on D; 2. interest of forum state; 3. P's interest in obtaining relief; 4. interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining most efficient resolution; 5. shared interest of several states infurthering fundamental substantial social policies |
PJ in Fed. Ct. [FCRP 4(k)(1)(2)] | generally, a fed. ct. only has jx if state in which it sits would have jx. Exceptions: 1. FQ 2. PJ const. AND 3. no state that would have PJ |
Keeton (Fed. Ct. PJ) | "state interest" where the state has a significant interest in the litigating the issues despite insubstantial minimum contacts if contacts are related to general activities in forum state |
Calder (Fed. Ct. PJ) | "effects test" if the focal point & effects of a tortuous act are felt in the state, despite the lack of substantial contacts jurisdiction is proper |
BK (Fed. Ct. PJ) | D has substantial burden to prove unfairness K analysis: negotiations/comtemplated future consequences/terms of K/ course of dealing |
Asahi (Fed. Ct. PJ) | knowledge not enough to satisfy purposeful availment; no decision on stream of commerce |
Asahi (O'Connor's Theory) | Purposeful availment requires “additional conduct” that indicates an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum state (such as advertising in forum) |
Asahi (Brennan's Theory) | • So long as D places a product in the stream and is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise |
General JX (Subset of PJ) [Perkins Factors] | Helicopteros: continous & systematic if c/a not arise out of contact Perkins Factors: offices, executives, meetings, bank accts., sales, employees |
Consent to PJ | the right to object to a court's lack of PJ is a personal right that can be waived at any time by defendant; a P that files a suit consents to a counterclaim |
Shaffer(PJ) | all assertions of jx must satisfy International Shoe requirements. |
Burnham (PJ - Transient Presence) | SOP delivered in harm, in state and D voluntarily in state; affirms Pennoyer's traditional notions of PJ |