CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Choosing a Trial Court
Choosing a
Trial Court
(Federal or State Court)
Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
+
Personal
Jurisdiction
+
Venue
Venue Transfer
Forum non conveniens
Personal (Territorial)
Jurisdiction
Power
In personam
Process
In rem
In personam
In rem
Personal (Territorial)
Jurisdiction
Power
Domicile
Consent
Presence
In personam
Process
In rem
In personam
In rem
Property
(In State
When
Lawsuit
Filed)
Personal
Service
In
State
Attachment
(seizure)
(Publication?)
WHAT WE’RE DOING

The Formalist Approach


Problem Sets & RAC


Rules apply themselves
The syllogism
Appellate Cases


Exercise in rhetoric
Court’s result inevitable


Formalist
Instrumentalist

“Formalist” Policy
WHAT WE’RE DOING

Arguing from precedent

Argue rules



Argue facts



Choice
Meaning
Different facts
Different understanding
Let go of “right” answers
SKILLS:
ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT

Hypothetical #1 Corporations



Brandon sues JB Chocolates in NY
Breach of contract
JB Chocolates

“Presence”


Natural persons v. corporations
“Consent”



Express v. implied
As matter of law (state statutes)
As matter of fact
SKILLS:
ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT

Hypothetical #3 Corporations

Tort




Rhiannon (Iowa) v. JB Chocolates (WA
Auto accident Rhiannon & Erin (JB truck
driver)
Iowa accident
Distinguish case from #1
SKILLS: READING CASES
Rule Choice Options

International Shoe

How do facts fit in Pennoyer framework?


WA court?
Problems?

Def IS argument?
SKILLS: READING CASES
Rule Choice Options

International Shoe

Court’s Rule Choice


Test
Relationship to “presence”
SKILLS:
ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT

Hypotheticals – p. 102, note 4

Internat’l Shoe


Del. incorp. & Miss. HQ, ppb
IS & Wyoming


No sales, purchases, salespeople
Uses roads for transporting shoes
SKILLS:
ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT

Hypotheticals – p. 102, note 4

IS Truck collides w/ rancher in Who.


Former EE in Wyo



Wyo jurisdiction over neg. claim
Wyo jurisdiction over Mo. wrongful discharge
Pl. sues IS in Mo.
Pl. sues IS in Del.
SKILLS:
ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT

Hypothetical

Internat’l Shoe


Del. incorp. & Miss. HQ, ppb
IS & Wyoming



No sales, purchases, salespeople
Uses roads for transporting shoes
WA salesperson  IS unpaid comm’n’s


Jurisdiction in Wyoming?
Additional information?
BLACK LETTER LAW
The Minimum Contacts Test

[Defendant]


mimum contacts


must have
with [the forum state]
such that maintenance of suit



does not offend
“traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice
Personal
Jurisdiction (State Court)
Process
Power
Presence
??
Consent
??
Domicile
??
Minimum
Contacts
+
subst. justice
& fair play
International Shoe “Boxes”
Contacts
Systematic
Isolated
& continuous
Claim
Related
Unrelated
|
Jurisdiction |
?
|
______________|______________
|
|
?
|
No jurisdiction
|
TAKEAWAYS
International Shoe

Conceptual Frameworks


Black Letter Law


Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction
Minimum contacts test
Skills: Reading Cases

Rule Choice