Visit Me Please :)

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Test to Determine Personal Jurisdiction

Here it is! The unrequested test for determining whether a court can exercise jurisdiction over a person (civil cases):


  1. Long Arm Statute Analysis (Allow for Jurisdiction/Doesn't?)
  2. Due Process
    1. Minimum Contacts
      1. Foreseeability / Purposeful Availment
        1. International Shoe: Must have minimum contacts, so that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional nations of fair play and substantial justice.
        2. World Wide Volkswagen: Foreseeability: Defendant should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court there. Purposeful Availment: Defendant does something to have clear notice of being subject of suit there.
          1. Foreseeability alone is not sufficient
        1. Asahi: Stream of Commerce Plus (O'Connor)
        2. Shaffer: Assertions of state court jurisdictions must pass the international shoe standard, when the property is not related to the litigation.
        3. Burger King: Extended contractual relationship established minimum contacts, no physical presence need ever occur in the state.
        4. Burnham: Physical presence in the state is usually always sufficient (always: scalia, usually: brennan).
    1. Relatedness
    2. Fairness
      1. Burden on the Defendant:
        1. Asahi: Would be a great burden to litigate a dispute between a Japanese and Taiwanese corporation in California.
        2. Burger King: If the burden on the defendant is large, a change of venue can be granted to resolve the issue
      1. Interest of the Forum State:
        1. Asahi: Forum state has little interest in litigating a dispute between two foreign corporations
      1. Plaintiffs interest in Obtaining Relief:
        1. Asahi: The plaintiff was no longer a party to the action, so it had no interest in where the remaining suit was settled.
      1. Judicial Efficiency of Resolution of Disputes
      2. Shared interests of several states in furthering substantive social policies:


  1. this info just helped a friend of mine that is attending law school

    he says "Thanks mate"

  2. Which university are you attending btw? Any famous like Harvard or Cambridge? :)

  3. Is this in order of importance? Does that mean that if someone sues you for something you did 10 years ago, it wasn't done in due process and therefore they can't sue you?

    I think you should go over due process haha.

  4. that's actually quite interesting, thanks.

  5. guess burger king doesn't like to deal directly with the people that sue it

  6. Yeah, I imagine with the way the King acts he'd get held for contempt if he showed up in court himself.