Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

Quasi - Civil Procedure - Lecture Notes, Study notes of Civil procedure

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar UniversityCivil procedure

These are the lecture notes of Civil Procedure. Key important points are: Quasi, International Shoe, Preliminary Relief, Liability, Bring Action, Shaffer, Concurrence, Commonly Brought, International Law, International Context

Typology: Study notes

2012/2013

Uploaded on 01/27/2013

sonam-g
sonam-g 🇮🇳

4.8

(5)

21 documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Civil Procedure 10/18/2012
Civil Procedure Notes (10-18-2012)
Quasi in rem (continued)
• How does Shaffer v. Heitner (Greyhound stock case) and quasi in rem work under the regime of
International Shoe?
o Side note: preliminary relief (attachment, etc.) can be problematic because it occurs
BEFORE any liability is determined
o Although there was “property” (in the form of stock in Greyhound) in DE, Supreme Court
reversed (no PJ in DE)
o What if there is a question about who owns the shares?
If it’s brought in DE it would be ok, even though there is question about where the
share actually are
It wouldn’t make sense to bring action in a different state where P is a domiciliary,
because no other claimants to stock have reached out to that state
the extra problem with Shaffer was that the cause of action was unrelated to the stock
o In his concurrence, Stevens notes that a person could reasonably anticipate that owning real
property would subject him to quasi in rem jurisdiction, but that reasonable expectation of PJ
is not present with stocks because of their abstract location
o Q-In-R actions now most commonly brought in international cases
In Pennoyer v. Neff, PJ was based on international law – it was folded into the due
process clause
But now that PJ law has evolved, has international law evolved as well? Or is
International Shoe about interstate context vs. an international context?
Do other nations respect International Shoe?
• In some respects international law looks more like Pennoyer v Neff
than Int. Shoe
Aside: Why do foreign corporations have rights to due process when before state
courts?
If we are dragging a D in front of a state court, then foreign Ds must have due
process rights under 14th Amendment as well
• In rem actions given Shaffer v. Heitner?
o In rem is fine because there is specific jurisdiction
The in rem action is about the property
o Why can you bind people around the world?
If somebody on the other side of the world claims an interest in that property, then
they have reached out to that state and fulfilled “minimum contacts” standard
If person on the other side of the world doesn’t claim an interest, then they won’t care
about the case anyway
Docsity.com
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download Quasi - Civil Procedure - Lecture Notes and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

Civil Procedure 10/18/

Civil Procedure Notes (10-18-2012)

Quasi in rem (continued)

  • How does Shaffer v. Heitner (Greyhound stock case) and quasi in rem work under the regime of International Shoe? o Side note: preliminary relief (attachment, etc.) can be problematic because it occurs BEFORE any liability is determined o Although there was “property” (in the form of stock in Greyhound) in DE, Supreme Court reversed (no PJ in DE) o What if there is a question about who owns the shares?  If it’s brought in DE it would be ok, even though there is question about where the share actually are  It wouldn’t make sense to bring action in a different state where P is a domiciliary, because no other claimants to stock have reached out to that state  the extra problem with Shaffer was that the cause of action was unrelated to the stock o In his concurrence, Stevens notes that a person could reasonably anticipate that owning real property would subject him to quasi in rem jurisdiction, but that reasonable expectation of PJ is not present with stocks because of their abstract location o Q-In-R actions now most commonly brought in international cases  In Pennoyer v. Neff, PJ was based on international law – it was folded into the due process clause  But now that PJ law has evolved, has international law evolved as well? Or is International Shoe about interstate context vs. an international context?  Do other nations respect International Shoe? - In some respects international law looks more like Pennoyer v Neff than Int. Shoe  Aside: Why do foreign corporations have rights to due process when before state courts?  If we are dragging a D in front of a state court, then foreign Ds must have due process rights under 14th^ Amendment as well
  • In rem actions given Shaffer v. Heitner? o In rem is fine because there is specific jurisdiction  The in rem action is about the property o Why can you bind people around the world?  If somebody on the other side of the world claims an interest in that property, then they have reached out to that state and fulfilled “minimum contacts” standard  If person on the other side of the world doesn’t claim an interest, then they won’t care about the case anyway
  • In personam in Shaffer due to other contacts besides the shares? o Should there be PJ because the officers accepted their jobs as officers? It seems like there should be.  Company is a DE corp, so officers are reaching out to DE by becoming officers of a company incorporated in that state.  Should probably satisfy the requirement for minimum contacts.  cause of action is related to those contacts (it is about their jobs as officers and directors at Greyhound)
  • How are McGee factors related to Shaffer? o How difficult is it for D to go to forum?  No evidence officers ever went to DE, but it is not overly difficult o How difficult is it for P to go to Ds home state?  Probably equally difficult as above o Where action occurred  In Arizona/Oregon o Location of Witnesses  Witnesses would be in AZ/CA/OR o Does forum state have a manifest interest?  DE has a large interest  DE law governs suit  Greyhound is a DE corp created under DE law o Who can best interpret DE law?  Delaware o General convenience  Officers are all over the place, and it makes sense to have one place where all officers could be sued  State of incorporation would be a good place for that
  • N.B. Supreme Court should be discussing whether DE has the power over the D in this case, not whether DE has chosen/has an interest to exert such power o That is a matter of DE law between the DE legislature and courts, and U.S. should have left this alone

Specific Jurisdiction

  • Out-of-state activities have in-state effects
  • VW, Asahi, and McIntyre o All cases of specific jurisdiction, tort action about harm in forum state, and contact between D and forum state is through an intermediary
  • World-Wide VW v. Woodson (pg. 598) o Robinsons get in car crash in OK (bring case in OK)

 What do the McGee factors say about this case?  All witnesses would be in Germany or OK (location of manufacturer and crash)  Burden on D to go to OK is not large

  • Lawyers will be provided by their insurance company (which probably has a branch in the OK area)  Burden of P to go to NY is large
  • They are in the hospital in OK  Suit brought under OK law (probably)  Place to bring everybody together (like in Shaffer)?
  • This might be better/about the same in NY  Interest of the forum state (OK)
  • OK has a large interest in determining liability concerning cars blowing up on OK roads, even if it happens to non-Oklahomans  Ds contacts with forum state  D sold car to P that they knew might drive through OK – that is the extent of the contact  It is foreseeable that cars would end up in OK, but that is not enough
  • It is NOT foreseeable that Ds conduct (sale of the car) and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonable anticipate being haled into court there  Stream of commerce  Product makes its way into the forum state by way of commerce
  • This is NOT a stream of commerce case (despite Brennan’s assertions that it is)
  • The final consumer brought the product into the forum state, not the stream of process  Brennan mentions analogous cases  Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals
  • Pollutants flowed down river and into Ohio (there was PJ in Ohio) o Natural Process (Ohio v. Wyandotte) v. Human Agency (this case) o Human agency involves the plaintiffs themselves, not just any person.