Civil Procedure: Personal Jurisdiction and Minimum Contacts, Exams of Nursing

An in-depth analysis of personal jurisdiction in civil procedure, focusing on the concepts of minimum contacts and purposeful availment. It covers various types of personal jurisdiction, including in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem, as well as the waiver of jurisdiction through consent. The document also discusses the original and modern standards for personal jurisdiction, including the international shoe test and the burger king two-pronged test.

Typology: Exams

2023/2024

Available from 02/16/2024

ellanor-anderson
ellanor-anderson 🇺🇸

3.5

(2)

1.3K documents

1 / 7

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Civil Procedure questions and answers rated
A
Personal Jurisdiction General - The power of a court to affect rights of person or
thing. Limited by constitutional impositions of due process
Determining Whether court can exert PJ - 1. Determine if Defendant has waived
personal jurisdicion by consent 2. **Federal Courts look to Rule 4k1a and 4k1b 3.
Examine state long arm statute 4. Perform due process analysis using Burger King
for core analysis
Types of Personal Jurisdiction - 1. In personam 2. In Rem 3. Two Types of Quasi in
Rem
PJ - In personam - Jurisdiction over a person. Cannot have constructive service
PJ - In rem - Jurisdiction over property. Can have constructive service
PJ - Type 1 Quasi in rem - Resolves dispute about the property
PJ - Type 2 Quasi in rem - Dispute is unrelated to the property. The property is
attached to assert the court's jurisdiction over the property. *must be attached at
the outset (Pennoyer)
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Civil Procedure: Personal Jurisdiction and Minimum Contacts and more Exams Nursing in PDF only on Docsity!

A

Personal Jurisdiction General - The power of a court to affect rights of person or thing. Limited by constitutional impositions of due process Determining Whether court can exert PJ - 1. Determine if Defendant has waived personal jurisdicion by consent 2. **Federal Courts look to Rule 4k1a and 4k1b 3. Examine state long arm statute 4. Perform due process analysis using Burger King for core analysis Types of Personal Jurisdiction - 1. In personam 2. In Rem 3. Two Types of Quasi in Rem PJ - In personam - Jurisdiction over a person. Cannot have constructive service PJ - In rem - Jurisdiction over property. Can have constructive service PJ - Type 1 Quasi in rem - Resolves dispute about the property PJ - Type 2 Quasi in rem - Dispute is unrelated to the property. The property is attached to assert the court's jurisdiction over the property. *must be attached at the outset (Pennoyer)

A

Consent: Generally - when given PJ is waived even if the party has no contacts with the state Consent: Implied Consent (Hess v. Pawloski - D, a non resident gets into an accident with P when driving in P's state. State statute says D, by driving on state roads, gave implied consent to be served through a third party in state. Consent: Filing an Action - P submits to a court's jurisdiction by filing an action. Never overturned. Consent: General Appearance - D's appearance in court to contest case on the merits constitutes consent to a court's jurisdiction Consent: Express or by Contract - Party may agree to jursidicion before claim arises. Often part of commercial contract in the form of a "forum selection clause." never overturned Consent: Appointed Agent for Service - D has appointed an agent for service within the jurisdiciton of the court

A

Modern Standard for PJ: International Shoe (minimum contacts must satisfy?) - 1) Traditional notions of fair play and 2) substantial justice Modern Standard for PJ: International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test - AKA Shoe Box Test: (draw in shoe box test) Modern Standard for PJ: Purposeful Availment Added - World Wide Volkswagen - D must purposefully avail himself to benefits of the forum Modern Standard for PJ: Purposeful Availment - Can be satisfied by doing business in the forum. Such efforts suffice as sufficent to put such a D on notice that it is subject to suit there Modern Standard for PJ: Purposeful Availment - Reasonableness Consideration - Relationship between D and forum must not violate fair play and substantial justice/reasonableness Modern Standard for PJ; Purposeful Availment - 5 Reasonableness Factors - 1) Burden placed on D 2) Forum's interest in adjudicating the dispute 3) P's interest in obtaining relief 4) Interstate judicial system's interest in resolving disputes efficiently 5) Interest of all states in furthering social policies

A

Modern Standard for PJ: Purposeful Availment - Effect of Unilateral Activity - a. P's unilateral activity of bringing product into forum doesn't satisfy minimum contacts b. D's foreseeability that product might make it into forum doesn't create jurisdiction c. D must reach out to forum to establish minimum contacts Modern Standard for PJ: Purposeful Availment - 5 Factors for No Jurisdiction (the No No's) - 1) No business activity in the forum 2) No sales or services 3) No purposeful availment of privileges and benefits 4) No solicitation of business 5) No attempt to serve forum's market directly or indirectly Modern Standard for PJ: Two Pronged Test - Burger King - 1) Purposeful Availment

  • Contract alone doesn't establish minimum contacts. 2) No jurisdiction if contract is obtained fraudulently Modern Standard for PJ: Purposeful Availment Prong (Burger King Test) 4 Factors -
  1. Prior negotiations 2) Contemplated future actions 3) Terms of contract 4) Actual course of dealings Modern Standard for PJ: Reasonableness Standard Prong (Burger King Test) 5 Factors - 1) Burden on D 2) Forum's interest in adjudicating the dispute 3) P's

A

Modern Standard for PJ: SOC - O'Connor Decision in Asahi - 5 ways to avail yourself - 1) Intend to serve forum market 2) Design product for that market 3) Advertise in forum market 4) Establish channels for providing service in that market 5) Have designated distributor in the state Modern Standard for PJ: SOC - Brennan Decision in Asahi (Four in Support) - Putting product in SOC with expectation it may be sold in forum establishes minimum contact. Even indirect efforts to market in forum establish min. contacts Modern Standard for PJ: SOC - Brennan/O'Connor Synthesis (Two Options to Establish a Majority) - 1) If you have a product in the SOC and you have established additional contacts as outlined by O'Connor than you have a majority of 8 justices 2) If you have a product in the SOC and over 100,000 units than you have a majority of 5 justices Modern Standard for PJ: SOC - White Decision in Asahi - if there are over 100, units in the SOC than Minimum contacts is met. Modern Standard for PJ: Physical Presence as Basis for Jurisdiction - Left off pg. 4 of outline