PERSONAL JURISDICTION QUESTION (1) 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) A steady flow of fireworks manufactured by Angry Fireworks Corp. make their way into Oklahoma each year. (B) Angry Fireworks Corp. is now operating, but just temporarily, out of leased warehouse space in Oklahoma while its existing factory is being refurbished. (C) At regular intervals throughout each year, Angry Fireworks Corp. purchased telephone equipment for its manufacturing factory from Oklahoma vendors. (D) Angry Fireworks Corp. earns sizable volumes of income each year from fireworks sales to Oklahoma citizens. PERSONAL JURISDICTION QUESTION (2) 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? (A) Neither defendant will likely succeed. (B) The manufacturer will likely succeed but the distributor will likely not succeed. (C) The distributor will likely succeed but the manufacturer will likely not succeed. (D) Both defendants will likely succeed.