Agenda for 30 th Class
• Slides
• Exam
– What would you prefer:
• 3 hour in-class exam OR1 hour in-class exam + 8 hour take-home
– Notes on take home
• Exam questions would be the same whether in class or take-home
– Only difference is whether you get 2 hours or 8 hours for (same)
essay question(s)
• Take home exam can be taken during any 8 hour period during exam
period. Starting May 2 and ending May 15 at 5PM
– But in-class exam would be the morning of May 15, so you’d
probably want to do the take-home party before the in-class
exam
– Otherwise wouldn’t have full 8 hours
– But won’t need full 8 hours anyway
• Personal jurisdiction
– Review International Shoe and Hanson v Denkla
– World-Wide Volkswagen
1
– Introduction to Stream of Commerce
Next Class
• Yeazell pp. 124-31
• Questions to think about / Writing Assignment
– Briefly summarize McIntyre
– Yeazell pp. 131ff Qs 1- 4
– How would McIntyre have been decided under White’s view of the
“stream of commerce” theory as expressed in his opinion in World-Wide
Volkswagen
– How would McIntyre have been decided under O’Connor’s “stream of
commerce” plus theory
– How is Kennedy’s view of jurisdiction based on the “stream of
commerce” different from White’s and O’Connor’s? In what cases would
they reach the same result? In what cases different results?
– Questions on the next page
2
Next Class (continued)
• Suppose the California courts and juries are relatively generous to product
liability plaintiffs, but Nevada courts and juries are relatively stingy. A
Chinese company which is breaking into the US market is considering two
distributors, one based in California and another based in Nevada. The two
distributors seem roughly equal in quality and price. Which distributor would
you advise the Chinese company to select. Why?
• Suppose Washington state is suffering from high unemployment. Its
legislators would like to find a way to expand employment by encouraging
Chinese manufacturers to choose distributors based in Washington state.
You are an adviser to a Washington state legislator. What changes would
you suggest that Washington state make to its laws?
• If you were on the Supreme Court, in what situations would you allow those
injured by products to sue the manufacturer? Would you adopt White’s
Stream of Commerce theory? O’Connor’s Stream of Commerce plus?
Kennedy’s theory in McIntyre? Some other rule?
3
Last Class
• International Shoe
– Don’t analyze in personam jurisdiction over corporations by asking if
corporation is “present” in state
– Instead analyze “minimum contacts”
– Very substantial contacts give rise to general jurisdiction
• Corporation can be sued even if lawsuit is not related to contacts with
state
• State of incorporation or headquarters
• Perhaps where has physical presence (factory, office, shops), lots of
employees and/or does lots of business
– More sporadic contacts give rise to specific jurisdiction
• Corporation can be sued only if lawsuit is related to contacts with
state
• Hanson v Denkla
– Contacts only count if defendant purposefully availed itself of the
benefits of the forum
– Jurisdiction cannot be established by the unilateral acts of the plaintiff.
4
Questions on WWVW
• Briefly summarize World Wide Volkswagen
• Yeazell pp. 109ff 1c, 4e
• Did the plaintiffs in World-Wide Volkswagen sue in federal or state court?
How can you tell from the opinion itself (not Yeazell’s notes)?
• What is a writ of prohibition? Why did the defendants seek one?
• Who is Woodson? How did he get in the case?
• There were four defendants in the original action. Which of them challenged
jurisdiction? What if anything, did the U.S. Supreme Court decide about
jurisdiction over each of the four defendants. If there were some defendants
for whom the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on personal jurisdiction, how
would you argue that the trial court had jurisdiction over them? How would
you argue that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over them?
• Would the case have come out differently if the Robinsons had gotten into
an accident in New Jersey and sued in a New Jersey court, but the facts
were otherwise the same?
• Suppose the Robinsons had purchased their Audi in California from Pacific
Audi in Torrance, had gotten into an accident in California, and sued Audi,
Volkswagen of America, Pacific Volkswagen (the regional distributor, based
in Nevada) and Pacific Audi in a California court. Would the California court
have jurisdiction over all, some, or none of the defendants? Note that there
is a passage in the opinion which directly addresses this question. Is it 5
dicta?
Cons v
Manuf.
In CA
Yes
Probably
Cons v
Retailer
in CA
Cons v
Manuf.
In OR
Yes
Probably
Stream of Commerce
Question
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stream of Commerce
• Product manufactured in A, sold to distributor in B, and sold to consumer by
retailer in C
• White dicta in World-Wide Volkswagen (stream of commerce)
– There is jurisdiction over mfg in C, if sale is “not simply an isolated
occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the mfg or distributor to serve,
directly or indirectly the market for its products” in C
• O’Connor plurality opinion in Asahi (1987) (stream of commerce plus)
– Jurisdiction over mfg in C if White’s criteria satisfied AND “additional
conduct of the defendant [indicates] an intent or purpose to serve the
market” in C, e.g.
• Designing the product for C
• Advertising in C
• Establishing channels for providing regular advice to consumers in C
• Marketing product through distributor who has agreed to serve as the
sales agent in the forum state
– mfg has direct contractual relationship with retailer in state C?
• No majority opinion on stream of commerce in Asahi
– Majority agreed that no jurisdiction in California over indemnity suit
between foreign manufacturer and foreign part supplier, when California
plaintiff had settled with foreign manufacturer, because inconsistent with
“fair play and substantial justice,” even if purposeful availment could 7be
satisfied.