Uploaded by Adam Ifargan


1. Angry Fireworks Corp. was incorporated in Delaware and, for many years, had its sole
factory in Missouri. It sold fireworks to passing motorists along a busy Missouri highway.
One summer, as they were traveling past the Angry Fireworks Co. factory, Parents
stopped and purchased a set of fireworks to entertain their children. That same
summer, Parents set off the fireworks near their home in Oklahoma, causing tragic
injuries to their entire family. Parents hoped to sue Angry Fireworks Corp. in an
Oklahoma court.
The U.S. Constitution would most likely permit Oklahoma to exercise general personal
jurisdiction over Angry Fireworks Corp. if which of the following were true?
A steady flow of fireworks manufactured by Angry Fireworks Corp. make their way
into Oklahoma each year.
Angry Fireworks Corp. is now operating, but just temporarily, out of leased
warehouse space in Oklahoma while its existing factory is being refurbished.
At regular intervals throughout each year, Angry Fireworks Corp. purchased
telephone equipment for its manufacturing factory from Oklahoma vendors.
Angry Fireworks Corp. earns sizable volumes of income each year from fireworks
sales to Oklahoma citizens.
2. A Chinese company manufactured hoverboards. It entered into a contract with an
American distribution company to sell the hoverboards in State A, which had many
colleges with students that the manufacturer thought would be receptive to
hoverboards. A college student, attending college in State A, bought a hoverboard
manufactured by the Chinese company after seeing advertisements in the college’s
newspaper placed by the distributor. The student then transferred to another college in
State B. While the student was at college in State B, the hoverboard subsequently
caught on fire in the student’s dormitory room, injuring the student and destroying
some of his personal property. The student filed suit in federal court in State B, naming
the Chinese manufacturer and the U.S. distributor as defendants. Both the
manufacturer and the distributor filed motions challenging personal jurisdiction,
submitting affidavits asserting that neither defendant had any employees or property in
State B, placed advertising in State B, or had made sales in State B. The student
responded that specific jurisdiction was appropriate because the harm had occurred in
State B.
Will the defendants likely succeed in their challenge to personal jurisdiction?
Neither defendant will likely succeed.
The manufacturer will likely succeed but the distributor will likely not succeed.
The distributor will likely succeed but the manufacturer will likely not succeed.
Both defendants will likely succeed.