1. Mon., Sep. 11

2. The Pennoyer Framework

3. in personam – source of PJ is presence of D at initiation of suit (NOT at time of event being adjudicated) tagging

4. in rem – source of PJ is presence of property at initiation of suit suit concerns ownership of property (e.g. quiet title action) binding upon all possible claimants

5. quasi in rem two types: 1) suit concerns ownership of property (e. g
quasi in rem two types: 1) suit concerns ownership of property (e.g. quiet title action), BUT binding only on certain named parties

6. 2) source of PJ is D’s property in state at initiation of suit, but suit does not concern ownership of property although if P wins, D’s property will be used to execute judgment

7. this is the big problem: Neff, a domiciliary of California, enters Oregon, kills Mitchell’s family, and returns to California Neff owns no property in Oregon Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court for wrongful death PJ?

8. International Shoe v. Washington (U.S. 1945)

9. new theory of personal jurisdictional power

10. But to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state. The exercise of that privilege may give rise to obligations; and, so far as those obligations arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state, a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought to enforce them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue.

11. substantial continuous activity - suit concerning activities entirely distinct from those in the state

12. general jurisdiction D can be sued on any cause of action

13. single or occasional acts had nature and quality making corporation amenable to suit - related to cause of action

14. specific jurisdiction pj only for specific causes of action the activities giving rise to pj include those giving rise to the cause of action

15. Black’s opinion?

16. Black: There is a strong emotional appeal in the words "fair play," "justice," and "reasonableness." But they were not chosen by those who wrote the original Constitution or the Fourteenth Amendment as a measuring rod for this Court to use in invalidating State or Federal laws passed by elected legislative representatives. No one, not even those who most feared a democratic government, ever formally proposed that courts should be given power to invalidate legislation under any such elastic standards. … For application of this natural law concept, whether under the terms "reasonableness," "justice," or "fair play," makes judges the supreme arbiters of the country's laws and practices. This result, I believe, alters the form of government our Constitution provides. I cannot agree.

17. McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co. (US 1957)

18. Turning to this case we think it apparent that the Due Process Clause did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on respondent. It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with that State. The contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there and the insured was a resident of that State when he died.

19. - D (a TX corp.) enters into an insurance contract with P (a TX domiciliary) in TX. - After paying some premiums, P moves to CA and continues paying the premiums from there. - PJ over D in CA for breach of the contract?

20. It cannot be denied that California has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims. These residents would be at a severe disadvantage if they were forced to follow the insurance company to a distant State in order to hold it legally accountable. When claims were small or moderate individual claimants frequently could not afford the cost of bringing an action in a foreign forum - thus in effect making the company judgment proof. Often the crucial witnesses - as here on the company's defense of suicide - will be found in the insured's locality. Of course there may be inconvenience to the insurer if it is held amenable to suit in California where it had this contract but certainly nothing which amounts to a denial of due process.

21. Int’l Shoe theory of power v
Int’l Shoe theory of power v. convenience/reasonableness (or “McGee factors”)

22. Demo is incorporated in Pa and has all of its employees and facilities in Pa it sends one of its produce by mail to Paula (a California citizen) the product injures Paula and she sues Demo in Ca

23. Chung v. NANA Development Corp. 783 F.2d 1124 (4th Cir. 1986)

24. - Va. P goes to Alaska to buy reindeer horns from Alaska D
- Va. P goes to Alaska to buy reindeer horns from Alaska D. - Wants them to remain frozen. - Requests that the D ship some of them to him in Va. - When they arrive in Va. they are melted. - P sues D in Va. PJ?

25. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (U.S. 1980)

26. Okla.Stat., Tit. 12, § (a)(4) (1971) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person's causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state

27. writ of prohibition writ of mandamus

28. why include Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagen?

29. The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions.   It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum.   And it acts to ensure that the States through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.  The protection against inconvenient litigation is typically described in terms of "reasonableness" or "fairness."

30. Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment.

31. do the McGee factors recommend PJ?

32. how did Seaway intentionally reach out to Oklahoma?

33. Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals (U.S. 1971)

34. why is there PJ over Audi?

35. stream of commerce

36. This is not to say, of course, that foreseeability is wholly irrelevant. But the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum State. Rather, it is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.

37. Brennan’s dissent

38. intentional torts

39. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine (US 1984)

40. Calder v. Jones (U.S. 1984) - Floridian Nat’l Enquirer writer and editor were sued, along with publisher and distributor, for defamation in CA state court by CA resident - Writer and editor argued no PJ in CA because they had no control over where the distribution was - SCt held unanimously there was PJ

41. effects test?

42. Walden v. Fiore

43. - foreign terrorist kills Americans abroad - he knows they are Americans - he is sued by the families in U.S. in a U.S. court for wrongful death - PJ?

44. Essay Question 6. D, a scientist who is a national and domiciliary of Sweden, was employed in Sweden by Magazine (which is incorporated and has all its offices and employees in Sweden) to write an article about widgets. Magazine distributes its magazine all over the world, including California, and D was aware of this. After performing tests in Sweden on widgets provided to him by Magazine, D wrote an article, which was then published and distributed by Magazine, in which he stated that the P Corp.’s widgets were defective. The P Corp. is incorporated and has its principal place of business and all of its manufacturing in California, and D was aware of these facts when he wrote the article. The P Corp. sued D in state court in California for defamation under California law. D makes a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Will the motion succeed?

45. D (Mich) wishes to buy widget from the P Corp (Fla) he learns about the widget from a P Corp website, which he views in Mich in the ad, D is required to an order form to the P Corp’s office in Fla the order form says that the contract is entered into in Fla (when the D Corp ships the widget) and is governed by Fla law upon receipt of the widget D is required to send $25 to Fla D does not pay, so P Corp sues D in Fla state ct - PJ?

46. Burger King v. Rudzewicz (US 1985)

47. case is in federal court in Fla why do we care about the 14th Amendment?

48. McGee factors “sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.”