Conflict of Laws
Page 1
1
SLIDES
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN
CORP. v. WOODSON (pg 593)
2
WORLD-WIDE VW v. WOODSON
WRECK AND “CRASHWORTHINESS”
PRODUCTS SUIT IN OKLAHOMA
AGAINST NY CAR DEALER AND
DISTRIBUTOR
3
WORLD-WIDE VW v. WOODSON
DEALER AND DISTRIBUTOR HAVE
NO OTHER CONNECTION WITH
OKLAHOMA OTHER THAN THAT
THE CAR WAS FORESEEABLY
TAKEN THERE BY PURCHASERS
4
WORLD-WIDE VW v. WOODSON
QUESTION: CAN OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTIONALLY EXERCISE
JURISDICTION OVER NY DEALER
AND DISTRIBUTOR?
5
WORLD-WIDE VW v. WOODSON
HELD: NO
6
WORLD-WIDE VW v. WOODSON
THEY HAVE NO SUCH CONTACTS
WITH OKLAHOMA AS WOULD
SUBJECT THEM TO SUIT THERE
7
WORLD-WIDE VW v. WOODSON
FORESEEABILITY WAS NOT
ENOUGH
8
WORLD-WIDE VW v. WOODSON
SOME MORE DIRECT CONNECTION
BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND
STATE REQUIRED
Fall 2010
Class 16
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 2
9
SLIDES
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
10
“CAN THE ISLAND OF TOBAGO PASS
A LAW TO BIND THE RIGHTS OF THE
WHOLE WORLD?”
BUCHANAN v. RUCKER (1808) (NOT IN
CASEBOOK)
11
BUCHANAN v. RUCKER
TOBAGO HAS A LAW PERMITTING
SERVICE ON ONE “ABSENT” FROM
THE ISLAND BY NAILING A SUMMONS
TO THE COURTHOUSE DOOR
12
BUCHANAN v. RUCKER
PLAINTIFF TOOK JUDGMENT AGAINST
MERCHANT FROM DUNKIRK, THEN
LIVING IN LONDON WHO NEVER WAS
ON THE ISLAND
13
BUCHANAN v. RUCKER
ENGLISH COURT REFUSED TO
ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT
14
BUCHANAN v. RUCKER
DEFENDANT MUST HAVE BEEN
PRESENT IN THE JURISDICTION OR
THE JUDGMENT IS NO GOOD AND
CANNOT BE ENFORCED
15
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
PENNOYER v. NEFF (1877) — (p. 590)
TERRITORIAL APPROACH
TRADITIONAL BASES FOR
JURISDICTION: SEIZE DEFENDANT’S
PROPERTY IN STATE (IN REM)
16
SERVE DEFENDANT IN STATE
(IN PERSONAM)
Fall 2010
Class 16
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 3
17
SLIDES
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
PENNOYER’S CONCEPT WAS ONE OF
POWER — DESCENDS FROM WRIT OF
AD CAPIAS
18
AD CAPIAS: (THE SHERIFF SEIZES THE
DEFENDANT AND HOLDS HIM UNTIL
HE PAYS)
19
YOU CAN’T SEIZE AND HOLD
DEFENDANT UNLESS HE IS PRESENT
20
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
PENNOYER RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS:
YOU CAN BE SUED IN YOUR DOMICILE
YOU CAN CONSENT TO BE SUED
ANYWHERE
21
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
HESS v. PAWLOSKI (1927) (p. 591)
NON-RESIDENT MOTORIST ACTS
ARE OK
22
HESS v. PAWLOSKI
BY DRIVING ON STATE’S HIGHWAYS,
MOTORIST “CONSENTS” TO BE SUED
THERE
23
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
SIMILARLY, CORPORATIONS
“CONSENTED” TO SUIT BY DOING
BUSINESS IN THE STATE
24
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
NOTE THAT BESIDES
“TRADITIONAL BASES” FOR
JURISDICTION, THERE MUST BE
NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY
TO DEFEND
Fall 2010
Class 16
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 4
25
SLIDES
WUCHTER v. PIZZUTTI (1928) (NOT IN
CASEBOOK) OVERTURNS
NON RESIDENT MOTORIST ACT FOR
LACK OF NOTICE
26
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v.
WASHINGTON (1945)(p. 592)
27
INT’L. SHOE V. WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON STATE TRIES TO
ENFORCE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX ON
MISSOURI SHOE COMPANY FOR
SALESMEN IN WASHINGTON
28
INT’L. SHOE V. WASHINGTON
EARLIER CASES HELD MERELY
SOLICITING BUSINESS IN STATE
WAS NOT “DOING BUSINESS”
29
INT’L. SHOE V. WASHINGTON
ESTABLISHED “MINIMUM CONTACTS”
RULE: ARE THERE CONTACTS WITH
THE STATE SUCH THAT IT IS “FAIR”
TO SUBJECT DEFENDANT TO SUIT
30
MCGEE v. INTERNATIONAL
LIFE INSURANCE CO. (p. 603)
TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY THAT
DOESN’T DO BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA TOOK OVER BUSINESS
OF COMPANY WHOSE INSURED HAD
MOVED TO CALIFORNIA
31
MCGEE V. INT’L. LIFE INSURANCE
AFTER SEVERAL YEARS, INSURED
KILLED HIMSELF
Fall 2010
Class 16
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 5
32
SLIDES
MCGEE V. INT’L. LIFE INSURANCE
HELD: CALIFORNIA HAD SUFFICIENT
CONTACT AND INTEREST TO
LITIGATE CASE
33
HANSON v. DENCKLA (p. 596)
SETTLOR OF A DELAWARE TRUST
MOVED TO FLORIDA AND SUED THE
DELAWARE TRUSTEE THERE
34
HANSON v. DENCKLA
HELD: NO SUFFICIENT CONTACT
35
KULKO v. SUPERIOR COURT
OF CALIFORNIA (p. 774) HUSBAND
COULD NOT BE SUED FOR CHILD
SUPPORT IN CALIFORNIA DIVORCE
WHERE MOTHER AND CHILD LIVED
BUT HE HAD NO CONNECTION
36
CALDER v. JONES (p. 610)
WRITER AND EDITOR IN FLORIDA
SUBJECT TO SUIT IN CALIFORNIA
WHERE LIBEL VICTIM LIVED
EFFECT OF LIBEL WAS IN CALIFORNIA
37
PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL
COURTS: IN 99% OF CASES, RULE IS
THE SAME AS IN STATE COURT
38
PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL
COURTS:
IF YOU CAN’T SUE IN STATE COURT
YOU CAN’T SUE IN FEDERAL COURT
39
SHOPPING LIST OF TYPES OF CASES
THAT PERMIT SUIT
ANYWHERE (p. 608)
Fall 2010
Class 16
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 6
40
SLIDES
FEDERAL RULE 4(K) (p. 608-09)
NOTE EXCEPTION TO RULE 4(K)
WHERE NO STATE HAS JURISDICTION
41
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ
(p. 610)
42
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ
MICHIGAN FRANCHISEES BUY
BURGER KING FRANCHISE IN
MICHIGAN FROM BURGER KING
IN FLORIDA
43
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ
CONTRACT (SIGNED IN MICHIGAN)
SELECTS FLORIDA LAW
AND RECITES IT IS ENTERED
INTO IN FLORIDA
44
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ
BURGER KING SUES IN FLORIDA
45
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ
QUESTION: CAN THE MICHIGAN
FRANCHISEE WHO HAS NEVER BEEN
TO FLORIDA, BE SUED IN FLORIDA?
46
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ
HELD: YES — CONTACT IS
SUFFICIENT
47
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ
FRANCHISEES COULD FORESEE
BEING SUED IN FLORIDA
48
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ
BY SELECTING FLORIDA LAW, THEY
AVAILED THEMSELVES OF ITS
PROTECTION
Fall 2010
Class 16
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 7
49
Fall 2010
Class 16
SLIDES
NOTES
ASAHI METAL INDUSTRY CO. LTD. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
(p. 620)
50
ASAHI v. SUPERIOR COURT
JAPANESE TIRE STEM
MANUFACTURER IS THIRD PARTIED
INTO CALIFORNIA SUIT AGAINST
TAIWANESE TIRE MANUFACTURER
FOR INDEMNITY
51
ASAHI v. SUPERIOR COURT
JAPANESE CO. MADE NO SALES IN
CALIFORNIA BUT KNEW IT’S VALVES
WERE INCORPORATED IN TIRES
SOLD IN CALIFORNIA
52
ASAHI v. SUPERIOR COURT
HELD: NO JURISDICTION
53
ASAHI v. SUPERIOR COURT
PUTTING COMPONENTS IN STREAM
OF COMMERCE, KNOWING OTHERS
WILL SELL FINISHED PRODUCT IN
STATE, IS NOT ENOUGH
54
ASAHI v. SUPERIOR COURT
NOTE THAT SUIT BY CALIFORNIA
PLAINTIFF WAS SETTLED
55
ASAHI v. SUPERIOR COURT
ONLY DISPUTE WAS BETWEEN TWO
FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS
56
ASAHI v. SUPERIOR COURT
KEY TO CASE MAY BE IN 3RD AND 4TH
FULL PARAGRAPHS ON P. 623
57
ASAHI v. SUPERIOR COURT
NOTE, ALSO, COURT BACKS OFF IT’S
APPROVAL OF A CONTRARY RULE IN
GRAY v. AMERICAN RADIATOR IN
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN (p. 625)
Conflict of Laws
Page 8
58
SLIDES
WHEN YOU HAVE SOME TIME:
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN
v. WOODSON— THE REST OF THE
STORY 72 NEB.L.REV. 1182 (p. 604-5)
NEXT WEEK READING ASSIGNMENT:
WED: October 20, 2010: 627-664
THURS: October 21, 2010: 664-708
Fall 2010
Class 16
NOTES