Personal

Jurisdic/on
Footnotes:
1. All states have some kind of
statute that allows for a
tradi6onal basis for asser6ng
jurisdic6on.
2. A person may consent to PJ
long in advance of the li6ga6on.
Some6mes par6es to a contract
agree to li6gate only in a
designated forum. Such
provisions have been upheld
even if it is burdensome for one
party. Carnival Cruise Lines.
3. The intent of the individual to
make a par6cular loca6on a
permanent home and facts
indica6ng that the party had
physically located there. Must
be at the 6me the cause of
ac6on arose. Milliken
4. Weigh nerve center v. place of
ac6vity. See Subject MaFer
Jurisdic6on owchart.
5. Some are enumerated acts and
some are coextensive with 14th
Amendment. Most LAS are not
D friendly. Usually must defeat
by showing LAS is
uncons6tu6onal. Most allow PJ
for tor6ous acts commiFed w/
in the FSt and for tor6ous injury
in the FSt caused by an act or
omission outside of the FSt.
Argue both.
6. Every state has one. PJ is only
proper if falls within terms of
LAS and jurisdic6on is
cons6tu6onal (Shoe test).
7. **SEE MINIMUM CONTACTS
CHART

No

No in rem
or QIR
jurisdic6on

Does the D own

property in the
forum state?
Yes

No

Could get in rem

or QIR
jurisdic6on; go to
minimum
contacts analysis.

Was D present in the forum state

when process was served on him?
No

Are any of the following true?

(1) D has consented to be sued in
the forum state?2
(2) Consent through appointment of
an agent?3
(3) D is domiciled in the forum
state?3
(6) D is a corpora6on incorporated
in the forum state or the forum
state is the Ds principal place of
business?4

Yes

Valid General PJ even for

transient presence & regardless
of purpose. Presence is valid
basis.

Yes

Valid General PJ Contacts are

so voluntary & unambiguous that
they automa6cally cons6tute
minimum contacts & en6tle
forum state to exercise PJ over D
whether contacts are related/not

No

Does the forum states long-arm

statute provide for personal
jurisdic6on over D?5,6

No

Yes

Is there a purposeful
availment?

No

Yes

Sa6ses minimum
contacts analysis?**

No

Yes

Is jurisdic:on reasonable,
i.e., does it comport with
tradi:onal no:ons of fair
play?
Consider:
(1) Burden on the D
(primary concern).
(2) Forum State's interest
in adjudica6ng the
dispute.
(3) Ps interest in
obtaining convenient and
eec6ve relief.
(4) Interstate judicial
systems interest in
obtaining the most
ecient resolu6on of
controversies.
(5) Shared interest of the
several States in furthering
fundamental substan6ve
social policies.
Yes

Valid Cons/tu/onal Exercise

of PJ over D

No

NO PJ- Must be a long-arm

statute that allows for asser6on
of PJ over non-resident Ds. Even
if min. contacts (i.e., cons6t.
basis), s6ll need statutory basis
as well if D not served while
present in the state.
No PJ; D did not purposeful avail
himself of the laws & benets of
the forum state. Hanson.
No PJ. Shoe.
No PJ. In Asahi, the S. Ct. found
unreasonableness b/c:
(1) Unreasonable burden to
defend on foreign soil.
(2) Forum does not have a
reasonable interest in
adjudica6ng a dispute between
2 foreign companies over an
claim that arose from an ac6on
that took place in Taiwan.
(3) P was not a resident of the
forum state.
(4) Great care must be exercised
when haling a foreign company
into a U.S. court.
Even though D has minimum
contacts with forum state, due
process prevents the exercise of
PJ.
In Asahi, because they were
foreign Ds, the burden was too
great.

Minimum Contacts Framework

Was there a purposeful availment?
(1) Were the contacts the result of the unilateral ac:vity of the P? It is essen6al that there be some act by which the D purposefully
avails himself of the privilege of conduc6ng ac6vi6es within the forum state, thus invoking the benet & protec6on of its laws.
(2) Are the Ds conduct & connec6on with the forum state such that he should reasonably an:cipate being haled into court there?
(3) Did D deliberately engage in signicant ac:vi:es within the forum state or has he created con:nuing obliga:ons between
himself & a resident of the forum state?

Sporadic, Casual
Or Single Act

Systema/c &
Con/nuous Ac/vity

Related/Arises

Yes

Not Related
Probably No PJ = Con6nuous &systema6c ac6vi6es in
forum state + cause of ac6on is NOT related to that
ac6vity

General Jurisdic/on? Contacts must be substan6al or
domiciled. Lei up to the forum state.
- When would a forum state want to assert PJ in this
situa6on? Look at long-arm statute. S6ll must pass 2-
prong test of Due Process clause.

Valid PJ = Con6nuous & systema6c ac6vi6es in forum

state + cause of ac6on is related to that ac6vity
E.g., Intl Shoe

Probably PJ = Sporadic ac6vity or single act in forum

state + cause of ac6on ARISES OUT OF that ac6vity

Specic Jurisdic/on? Usually enough, but there s6ll
must be purposeful availment & claim must arise out
of the contact, not just be related to it.
E.g., McGee (no PJ b/c claim was related to, but did
not arise out of the contact)

Valid PJ
Intl Shoe Retailer; Systema6c and con6nuous acts

No

No PJ

No PJ = Sporadic or casual ac6vity of D in forum state +

cause of ac6on is NOT related to that ac6vity
E.g., Hanson

- Contacts will be deemed not minimum
Systema:c & con:nuous contacts are needed where
claim does not relate to Ds contacts with the forum
state to establish General PJ- Perkins
No PJ
Kulko Domes6c Rela6ons; No purposeful availment

Summary: S. Ct. ruled contacts (salesmen based in the state) were systema6c &
con6nuous & resulted in a large volume of interstate business for D. Also,
obliga6on to pay unemployment taxes arose from the contacts.

Summary: Divorced father sent children to go live w/ the mother in CA. Subsequently,
mother brought in personam suit against father for child support. S. Ct. ruled no PJ b/c
there was no purposeful act towards the state and no economic benet.

McGee Insurance K; Single act

WWV Products liability; No purposeful availment

Summary: S. Ct. sustained a states asser6on of jurisdic6on over a nonresident

D whose only contacts with the state were its issuance of an insurance policy
(sued upon) to a state resident and its receipt of policy premium payments from
that resident. Strong state interest; solici6ng business in a par6cular state may
be enough to allow jurisdic6on

Burger King Contract; Con6nuous obliga6ons

Summary: S. Ct. looked at the en6re contractual rela6onship. Contract itself not
enough. Must look at the prior nego6a6ons and contemplated future
consequences, along with the terms of the K and the par6es actual course of
dealings. D agreed to choice-of-law provision, which require li6ga6on in FL. S.
Ct. cited it as a factor, but not disposi6ve.

Summary: S. Ct. ruled no valid PJ over NY auto retailer and regional distributor b/c
neither of those Ds had purposefully aFempted to serve the OK market. It was not
sucient the Ds might derive revenue and benet from the fact that the cars are mobile
and thus could be used in OK. The unilateral ac6vity of P in driving to OK could not be
used assert PJit was the Ds conduct that was crucial.

Helicopteros In-state purchase; No general jurisdic6on

Summary: S. Ct. ruled that purchases and related trips standing alone, are not a sucient
basis for a FSs asser6on of PJ. Even if these purchases happened at regular intervals,
they are not enough if the cause of ac6on is not related to these transac6ons. The brief
presence of the Ds employees in Texas for the purpose of aFending the training sessions
is not enough either.

Summary: P, ci6zen of NY, brought suit in NH solely b/c of long statute of

limita6ons. S. Ct. upheld. P only had one contact with NH, argued jdn was valid
b/c D sold thousands of magazines there. Court upheld saying these sales
couldnt be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous. Ps lack of contacts
doesnt maFer if D has sucient contacts in every state.

Summary: D put goods into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that they were
regularly sold in the FSt. D beneted economically from such acts. However, there was no
addi6onal conduct such as designing the product for the market in the FS, adver6sing in
the FS, establishing channels for providing regular advice in the FS, marke6ng the product
through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the FSt. Divided court
gives us two approaches to min. contacts: OConners: pusng goods into stream of
commerce not enough, need purposeful direc6on (conduct directed towards the state);
Brennans: stream of commerce is enough, predictability: no surprise to D, D had
benet of the forum. Only preceden6al value lies in reasonableness: unique burden of
subjec6ng a corpora6on to a foreign jurisdic6on

Keeton Libel; Tor6ous out-of-state conduct

Calder Libel; [Inten6onal] Tor6ous out-of-state conduct

Summary: P brought suit in CA against writer and editor, both ci6zens of FL,
claiming they wrote a defamatory ar6cle about her. Ds had never visited CA in
connec6on w/ the ar6cle and it was produced in FL. Ar6cle was published
na6onwide. S. Ct. upheld jurisdic6on b/c the harm was suered in FSt.
Jurisdic6on is based on the eects of their FL conduct in CA. Ds should
an6cipate being haled into court there. Ac6ons from outside the state that has
foreseeable tor6ous eects inside the state can be a basis for asser6ng
jurisdic6on.

Hess Non-resident motorist statute; Implied consent

Summary: Court found that a state has power to declare all non-residents who
use its highways have implicitly consented to submit to the states jdn for all
ac6ons arising from that highway usage; by choosing to drive in a state, a non-
resident demonstrates that the state is not so inaccessible or remote that it
would be unfair to subject him to a suit in that state

Asahi Sales into FSt; Not reasonable

Hansen Trust; No purposeful availment

May be strong state interest, but contact is due to unilateral ac6vity which is not a
good quality contact. (The conduct of the plain6 vis--vis the forum state is dierent
than in McGee.) If there are no contacts that are the result of purposeful availment,
reasonableness doesnt maFer no personal jurisdic6on

Shaer AFachment of intangible property; QIR type 2; Also not reasonable

Summary: P brought a deriva6ve shareholders suit by aFaching the stock of non-

resident directors. The situs of the stock: DE (SOI). Companys PPB: AZ. D argued that this
asser6on of QIR jurisdic6on violated their DPC rights b/c they had no other contacts with
DE. The S. Ct. struck down jurisdic6on and ruled that presence of property is not enough
min. contact standard from Intl Shoe applies when determining asser6ons of
jurisdic6on based on the presence of property in FS. Property s6ll an important contact