I.
Traditional basis for JRD (Pennoyer)
a.
Original scheme was found on power
b.
Shift from power to fairness – (International Shoe)
c.
Modern structure (Burnham)
i.
Consent
ii.
Domicile
iii.
Status
iv.
Person Present (Burnham)
v.
Minimum Contact
II.
Personal Jurisdiction (constitutional limits)
a.
Generally (has to be within the confines of the constitution)
i.
"What gives you the right to render a judgment on my personal affairs"
ii.
14th Amendment requires Due process - Insures fair play and substantial justice
“**Throw into essay
iii.
The full faith and credit clause: State B has to honor State A’s judgment, unless State
A’s judgment was rendered without JRD
iv.
Long arm statute (statutory limits of PERS JRD) when a court can attach jurisdiction
1.
Enumerated 2.
Limits of due process
.
In personam jurisdiction (power over the person)
a.
Status:
i.
Only divorce. Only divorce. Multiple choice question
b.
Consent
i.
Expressed:
1.
Forum selection clause:
a. Reasonable (cannot be so burdensome as to discourage litigation)
b. low scrutiny (the court isn't going to get into much of it)
2.
Designating an agent as for the purpose of accepting process
ii.
Procedural Waiver (procedurally you can waive jurisdiction - if you go to court and
argue, you already waived your personal jurisdiction)
1.
12(b) motion – Defense to jurisdiction
2.
Engage in litigation - If someone does not contest the jurisdiction and engages in
litigation cannot go back - essay question
3.
Special appearance – only appear to object to jurisdiction.
4.
Collateral Attack: When a party does not appear in a state court and challenges
the JRD
. D always has the option defaulting and attacking JRD in an enforceable
proceeding
a. A judgment rendered without JRD violates due process and is an exception
to full faith and credit
c.
Contacts based jurisdiction (minimum contacts) - *** Throw down phrase: D needs to have
certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does
not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
i.
General JRD - your contacts are high so you can get sued for anything
1.
Substantial Contacts: D has such substantial contacts with state to make it fair
to assert JRD even over claims unrelated to those contacts.
2.
3.
4.
ii.
. Enough to satisfy “fair play” (International Shoe)
Domicile (Milliken v. Meyer)
a. Individuals
i.
Presence in forum state and intent to remain
ii.
Domiciliary status considered at the time of filing
b. Corporations
i.
State of incorporation
ii.
Principal place of business (PPB)
Essentially at home (Goodyear)

Headquarters

State if Incorporation

Contacts must be continuous and systematic

A corporation’s “single or isolated” items of activities in a

state are not enough to subject it to suit on causes of action
unrelated with the activities there. (International Shoe)
(Perkins in Helicopteros)

Transient (Person present and served in the state)
a. Exceptions
i.
Fraud
ii.
Involuntary
iii.
Witnesses
b. Why?
i.
Scalia (4 votes) - transient ok because it’s a traditional notion of fair
play and substantial justice.
Unless traditional refers to how you are served. Ex: In air.

ii.
Brennan (4 votes) - transient ok because of “fairness” D was in state
voluntarily. “Person present” basis was fair in Burnham
Low burden

Foreseeability

Purposeful availment: defendant derived benefits form the

forum
Property present (Shaffer)
. Property may be a contact, but still must analyze under (Shoe)
Specific JRD- the D’s contacts with the forum are related to the subject matter of the
suit. The suit arises from or is related to the D’s in-state activity.
1.
Must be the D’s contacts, not a third party
2.
Purposeful availment by D (Henson)
3.
Directed toward forum by D (Woodson)
4.
Stream of Commerce (Asahi & Nicastro)
a. Brenan (4 votes) from Asahi
i.
If foreseeable, it is enough
b. O'Connor from Asahi
i.
Awareness, plus intent to serve
ii.
Design for forum
iii.
Advertising
c. Stevens from Asahi
i.
Volume
iii.
iv.
v.
ii.
Value
iii.
Hazardous character
d. Kennedy (4) Nicastro – Contacts exist in a stream of commerce case if:
i.
D is aware that product is going to forum and
ii.
Have to target the forum
iii.
US is not enough – has to “target” the VERY STATE
e. Breyer (2) from Nicastro
i.
Needs more than a “single or isolated” sale
ii.
Awareness is not enough, more sales (Stevens) or
iii.
You must target plus (O’Connor)
5.
Contracts (Burger King)
. Factors:
i.
The nature of the negotiations between the parties
ii.
The contemplated future consequences
iii.
Terms of the contract
iv.
Course of dealing between parties
6.
In State Activity (International Shoe)
. Conducting business in the state
a. Reciprocity – extracting benefits and inducing harm
b. Foreseeability
c. Effects Test – D acts in state A intending a harm in state B Palovich (Calder
Test)
Fair Play (International shoe) – Always do a fair play analysis
1.
Burden on Defendant
. Geography
a. Language
b. Travel
2.
Forums (state’s) interest
3.
Plaintiff's Interest
4.
Efficiency
5.
Shared substantive policies between the states
Relationship between Fair Play and Contacts
0.
High fair play makes up for low contact (Burger King)(McGee)
1.
High Contacts makes up for low fair play (Keeton)
2.
Other Limits
. Very low fair play means no JRD (Asahi)
a. No contacts but high fair play?
. (Woodson said no) - No contacts – No power
i. Mullane said yes
Amenability to Service
0.
Rule 4(k)1
1.
Rule 4(k)2