Personal Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure - Lecture Slides, Slides of Civil procedure

These are the lecture slides of Civil Procedure. Key important points are: Personal Jurisdiction, International Shoe, Modern Theory, Non Resident Defendants, World Wide Volkswagen, Woodson, Supreme Court Case, Harmful, Volkswagen, Woodson

Typology: Slides

2012/2013

Uploaded on 01/26/2013

radheshyam
radheshyam 🇮🇳

51 documents

1 / 28

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS
We finished our discussion of the modern
International Shoe, a landmark case setting out the
modern theory of personal jurisdiction in cases
involving non-resident defendants.
By examining another major Supreme Court case,
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, we began to
consider how the Court has applied the International
Shoe test applies to a situation where a non-resident
defendant allegedly commits a harmful act outside
the forum state that causes harm within the forum
state.
Docsity.com
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c

Partial preview of the text

Download Personal Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure - Lecture Slides and more Slides Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS

  • We finished our discussion of the modern International Shoe, a landmark case setting out the modern theory of personal jurisdiction in cases involving non-resident defendants.
  • By examining another major Supreme Court case, World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, we began to consider how the Court has applied the International Shoe test applies to a situation where a non-resident defendant allegedly commits a harmful act outside the forum state that causes harm within the forum state.

WHAT WILL WE DO TODAY?

  • Continue our study of this issue by analyzing 3

significant Supreme Court cases: World-Wide

Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980), Asahi (1987),

and Calder v. Jones (1984)

REVIEW: MINIMUM CONTACTS

  • State the minimum contacts test that the

Court in International Shoe held was required

by the Due Process clause.

THE SUPREME COURT: MODERN STANDARD FOR

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

  • According to Chief Justice Stone in International Shoe, the modern standard for a state’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is that “ due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.“ [citation omitted]”.
  • le”.

World-Wide Volkswagen: Flow Chart

WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN:

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

  • Where do plaintiffs file their action against

defendants?

  • Why do plaintiffs choose this forum?

Another Puzzle

  • Why didn’t the plaintiffs sue Lloyd Hull, the drunk driver of the vehicle that hit their car?

WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: CLAIMED BASIS

FOR JURISDICTION

  • What is the source of law for plaintiffs’

claimed assertion of jurisdiction over

defendants?

BACK TO WORLD-WIDE

VOLKSWAGEN

  • How does the Oklahoma Supreme Court rule

on the writ of prohibition?

  • What is the legal issue for decision by the U.S.

Supreme Court?

  • How does the U.S. Supreme Court rule?

REASONING OF U.S. SUPREME COURT

MAJORITY OPINION IN WORLD-WIDE

VOLKSWAGEN

  • The U.S. Supreme Court endorses the “minimum contacts” test set out in International Shoe
  • According to Justice White (1962-93), who delivers the Court’s opinion, what are the two functions of the minimum contacts test?

Justice White’s Majority Opinion

in WWVW

  • According to Justice White, which prong of the International Shoe test should be examined first?

APPLYING THE MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST TO

THE FACTS OF WWVW

  • How does Justice White apply the International Shoe

test to the facts of World--Wide Volkswagen?

  • Is it relevant that the NY defendants arguably could

foresee that the Audi would enter Oklahoma?

  • Is the concept of “purposeful availment” important

to Justice White? Why or why not?

World-Wide Dissents

  • Please explain the

basis for Justice Brennan’s (1957-90) dissent.

World-Wide Dissents

  • Please explain the

basis for Justice Blackmun’s (1970-94) dissent

  • Do you agree with the

majority or with any of the dissents? Why?