Civil Procedure –
Personal Jurisdiction in State court
- PJ under Pennoyer v. Neff is always general never specific
o If you have someone or some property of theirs in your borders at the initiation of
the suit then you have general jurisdiction
o There is no concern about the particular cause of action.
- PJ under International Shoe
o Now a state can reach the defendant out of state to drag someone back for past
activities in the state.
o But only for specific activities/particular causes of action
International Shoe v. Washington (U.S. 1945)
o “But to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting
activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that
state. The exercise of that privilege may give rise to obligations; and, so far as
those obligations arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state,
a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought to enforce
them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue when a defendant reaches
out to the forum state in some way [contracts, business, etc.] the defendant has
reciprocal obligation to answer for their actions, and only those actions, in that
state.”
o Under International Shoe specific jurisdiction theory you must look at what the
Defendant did in the forum state and what the cause of action is.
Must consider relationship between the two.
- in Intl Shoe the Court recharacterized past cases under Pennoyer
o Four categories under International Shoe
activities are continuous and systematic & give rise to liabilities sued upon
= PJ
casual presence, single isolated activities - suit unconnected with activities
in state ≠ PJ
substantial continuous activity - suit concerning activities entirely distinct
from those in the state = PJ (GM in Michigan)
single or occasional acts had nature and quality making corporation
amenable to suit - related to cause of action = PJ
• this is the new category
• in the past these cases relied on the fiction of a continued agent
for service of process, but the Court now considers the fiction
unnecessary
- Black’s concurrence
o Offers much more inclusive language
“I believe that the Federal Constitution leaves to each State, without any
‘ifs’ or ‘buts,’ a power to tax and to open the doors of its courts for its
citizens to sue corporations whose agents do business in those States.”
Problems
• Can corps be sued on any cause of action?
• Does not say how much business is enough
What’s bothering him?
Docsity.com
