Agenda for 22nd Class
• Admin
– Name plates
– Handouts
• Slides
• Internet Jurisdiction
– Lunch sign up
• This Friday, 12:30
• Meet outside Rm 433 (Faculty Lounge)
• Review of Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel
• Review of Personal Jurisdiction I
• Personal Jurisdiction:
– World Wide Volkswagen
– McIntyre
1
Assignment
• Yeazell 112-118 (Burger King)
• Handout (internet jurisdiction)
• Questions to think about / Writing Assignment
– Briefly summarize Burger King
– Yeazell pp. 117ff. Q1, 2
– Suppose you buy Duck Boots mail order from LL Bean and pay with a
check. They send you the boots, but your check bounces. LL Bean
sues you in Maine, where it is headquartered. Does the Maine court
have jurisdiction over you?
– Briefly summarize Revell
– Handout Problems 2-18 to 2-20 (last page of Internet Juris. Handout)
2
Review of Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel I
• Res Judicata
– Claim preclusion
– Cannot relitigate same claim
– Cannot relitigate related claim
• Federal rule: Cannot relitigate claim that arises out of same
transaction or occurence
• State rules (e.g. Illinois) may be narrower
– Raise res judicata in answer as affirmative defense
• Collateral Estoppel
– Issue preclusion
– Cannot relitigate same issue (element)
• Both res judicata and collateral estoppel
– Apply res judicata or collaterl estoppel rule of court which rendered first
judgment
• Case 1. Illinois state court
• Case 2. Federal court
• If res judicata issues or collateral estoppel arises in Case 2, apply
Illinois state court rules on res judicata or collateral estoppel
– Usually resolved on summary judgment
3
Review of Mutual & Non-Mutual Estoppel
• Mutual collateral Estoppel
– Suit 1. A v B, issue X resolved
– Suit 2. A v B. Neither A nor B can religitate issue X
• Non-mutual defensive collateral estoppel
– Suit 1. A v B. issue X resolved in B’s favor
– Suit 2. A v C. A cannot relitigate issue X
• Issue X assumed to be resolved in favor of C
– Accepted now in all courts
• Non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel
– Suit 1. A v B. issue X resolved in A’s favor
– Suit 2. C v B. Maybe B cannot relitigate issue X
• Issue X may be assued to be resolved in favor of C
– 3 factors in federal court. See Parklane
• No estoppel
– Suit 1. A v B. issue X resolved in A’s favor
• Suit 2. A v C. C can relitigate X
– Suit 1. A v B. issue X resolved I B’s favor
• Suit 2. C v B. C can religite X
4
• Estoppel never harms someone who wasn’t a party to the first suit
Review of Personal Jurisdiction I
• 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.
5
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 6
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 8be
satisfied.
World-Wide Volkswagen
• 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?
• 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 9
addresses this question. Is it dicta?
McIntyre I
• 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?
10
McIntyre II
• 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?
11