c






Nutshell:
1 question: Can the plaintiff sue the defendant in this state?
For a court to have personal jurisdiction-the court must have power over something
Either the defendant themselves
OR the defendant's property

3 types of power:
In personam- Over defendant himself
In Rem-Over property, sometimes you can't get in personam so you must revert to this
Quasi In rem (this is now all but dead approach)

Can the court have power? 2 things:

Due process sets the outer boundaries to how far court can go with jurisdiction:
Anything that falls in the boundaries are entitled to full faith and credit
Anything outside the boundaries has no power.
State must have statute that allows personal jurisdiction in the particular case--they can give less
power.

Cases and Law definitions that result:

c






   
General-Defendant can be sued in this forum on claim arising anywhere in world.
Specific- Defendant being sued on claim that arose in the forum.

1; Constitutional Limit-How big is the due process circle.

Looking at -Each case gives a tool that we use today.

Pennoyer V Neff-All about power. State has power over everything inside its
boundaries.
Traditional Bases on In personam Jurisdiction
   
  
 

 
  
-gives
general jurisdiction
   


 
  
-gives general
     -You can always consent to jurisdiction.
Hard to get jurisdiction because you had to serve instate-
Mobil society makes hard

Hess V Pawloski -Expands jurisdiction (this is 






)
(not a class case)
Hess gets in a wreck in another state(mass). Mass had a statute, none
resident motorist act-if you drive a motor vehicle in the state, then you
have made state official as your agent for process (every state has this
now). All they had to do was serve state agent, and mail a copy to Hess.
This jurisdiction was upheld.
Consistent with Pennoyer- Implied consent, and agent was
therefore properly served.
International Shoe- New formula that was not expanding states powers.
The magic phrase- 

   
  
  


 



   






  
 
 !
This Test is crap! No idea what the words mean.

1. Flexible- leads to expansion

2. Clear that you can serve process outside the forum
3. Seems to have 2 parts-Min contacts and Fairness
4. Nowhere does it purport to overrule Pennoyer (seemingly
alternative)
Mcgee
Txcompany sells one contract in CA
Stresses 3 things:
1.   

 the contract to CA
2. Stressed 
  

 
3."   -Plaintiffs claim arose from the contact with the
forum (helps make up for contact amount)

Hanson V Denckla (1958- finally court says no jurisdiction)

Trust fund with DE bank, moves to FL.
Did Fl have Jurisdiction over DE bank-NO
No jurisdiction because the defendant had no 
  

  .
To have a contact under I'Shoe, must avail of the forum

WW Volkswagen (1980) No jurisdiction

Buy car, move toward AZ, rear ended in OLK. Sued 4 deferent and clearly
had jurisdiction over manufacturer and Importer. Went to court over
regional distributor and seaway motors. Court says no to the latter
because there was no contact--they did not avail themselves to OLK-
#

     !
Foreseeable is relevant-but not that product would get there, but
that the defendant would get sued in this forum. -Hard, if
foreseeable product would get there, the suits seem foreseeable.

Calder V Jones (1984) You don't have to set foot in the forum
Article written in FL but you caused an effect in the forum state (Cause an
Effect)
Article Aimed at CA
Effects felt in CA

Burger King (1985) Contract case- Due process case the same.
Defendants are 2 lil guys up in Mich.
4 important things about BK

1: Court makes it clear I'Shoe has 2 parts (contact and Fairness)

 2: You must have relevant contact before fairness become relevant
(no relevant contact must be met)
3: Contact was very easy-Reached out to FL entity. Clearly
purposeful availment
4: Burden is on the defendant to show Forum is unconstitutional.
(show so gravely difficult and inconvenient that you are at a severe
disadvantage in the litigation--almost impossible to make that
showing- Parties financial position not relevant).

Ashihi (1987) Stream of Commerce case

Stream of commerce-Manufacture valves in state A and sell to B and it
sells final product in C D and E. If Values blow up in CDE? We have no law-
justices split 4 to 4. You must therefore know both approaches
Approaches
Brennan- Is a contact if you put product into the stream and
reasonably anticipate it will get to CDE. This would be a
relevant contact here.
O'Conner- Need Brennan Plus Intent or purpose to serve CDE.

There is no Law ON STREAM of Commerce!

Helicopteros
General Jurisdiction case. Specific could have been argued but was not
for some ill fated reason (They are making purposeful use of services in
TX. So they are over the threshold of specific jurisdiction). General
denied, not enough contact.

CEO's one trip not continuous and systematic

Checks did not mater--it was not controlled in contract.
Bought equipment-Purchases and related training trips on sufficient
standing alone
Sent Employees there to train-Not sufficient standing alone

Perhaps boils down to purchases and not wanting to make this enough
to drag someone into court and ruin International biz.

Burnham( 1990)
NJ defendant served with process in CA. Has nothing to do with CA, only
way it works is if CA has general jurisdiction. Is being served in the forum
enough under Pennoyer? Are the traditional bases still good by
themselves?
No answer given-4-4 Split
Scalia approach- Presence when served is enough, gives general
jurisdiction. Reason historical pedigree (Moldy old rule).In'shoe left
this open to exist alongside
Brennan- Generally sufficient. Some could not be(unknowingly in
state, against will, ect MIGHT not be)
 They all agreed that CA had general Jurisdiction. Brennan thinks
because he was there 3 days, that was enough. Very strange ruling
that throws Pennoyer right back into the mix.

Corporations Immunity to this.BS reasoning.

Revell V Lidov 4th 2002

Article in Columbia BB, about DC, TX suit.Inet such a game changer
perhaps we are looking at I͛shoe being rethought in the future.
Tools: Some still refer to Zippo continuum-Completely passive
never enough(even though could be advertising), Highly interactive
sufficient of IPJ(this is losing steam, don͛t rely at all).
Keeton/Calder applications: Calder test-State needs to be focal
point of statements and harmful effects. Has a flavor of purposeful
availment-the focal point.

È" $ 
" %&
     

!
With In Rem, the suit itself is about who owns the property or about directly
In Quasi In Rem, we know who owns the property but want to use to get at another issue.
This goes back to Pennoyer: He could not get to the defendant over a contract. They did not
attach the land at the outset though. You have to attach the land at the outset-ruling of the
court. This has all but been done away with now as you must meet I͛shoe so you would go
for In Personam unless you were trying to skirt notice laws.

What we do with today:

If its In Rem and land, then there is an argument that this is enough

Pennoyer says all you have to do is attach at the outset.

Shafer -Changes: Must attach at outset, but that alone is not enough. But the
defendant must meet I'shoe
'( 
'
c





 Territorial limits over federal district court
Limit as that state court across the street
Exception to above general rule: When Authorized by Fed Statute
Patent law, Copyright Law- things specifically for Fed.
Some World Wide Provisions as well.

( 

 
   %




.

For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service
establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:
A.? The defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any states courts of general
jurisdiction: and
B.? Exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the united states constitution and laws
 (defendant not subject to jurisdiction that has enough contact that state
court could not use long arm--rare for 4k2 case because states power so
broad).
*The SC has not resolved Federal limits on territory. Think Pennoyer and within US. Think also
I͛shoe and Min Contacts. Also remember must come under FEDERAL LAW.