Case International Shoe Co. vs.

State of Washington

Relevant Facts Suit against International Shoe for the collection of taxes. Salesmen in Washington regularly solicit and transmit sales orders to appellants office in Missouri. No store, merchandise, contracts, or deliveries.

Doctrine Washington court had jurisdiction. Presence in the state has never been doubted when the activities of the corporation there have not only been continuous and systematic, but also give rise to liabilities sued on, even though no consent to be sued or authorization to an agent to accept service of process has been given. In order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not within the territory of the forum, he should have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and judgment

M/S Bremen vs. Zapata Off-Shore Co.

Houston-based firm entered a towage contract with a German corporation, which provided a forumselection clause stating that any dispute will be resolved before a London court. A severe storm hit the vessel causing damage in Mexican waters. Firm brought suit in a U.S. Court.

Tampa court had no jurisdiction. In light of present-day commercial realities and expanding international trade, the forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside. The correct approach would have been to enforce the forum clause specifically unless there is a clear showing that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for fraud or overreaching.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. vs. Shute

Cruise ship provided a forum-selection clause to resolve disputes before a Florida court. Passenger who slipped on the ship brought suit in a Washington court.

Forum clause should have been applied. Forum-selection clauses contained in form passage contracts are subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness. Here, there is no indication that petitioner set Florida as the forum in which disputes were to be resolved as a means of discouraging cruise passengers from pursuing legitimate claims.

Bad-faith motive is belied by two facts: Petitioner has its principal place of business in Florida, and many of its cruises depart from and return to Florida ports; petitioner did not obtain respondents' accession to the forum clause by fraud or overreaching; and respondents were given notice of the forum provision and, therefore, retained the option of rejecting the contract with impunity. Insurance Corp. of Ireland vs. CBG Pennsylvania court assumed it had jurisdiction over the excess insurers mainly due to a sanction for failure to comply with a discovery order. Pennsylvania court did not abuse its discretion. The requirement that a court have personal jurisdiction flows from the Due Process Clause. Personal jurisdiction represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty. Thus, the test for personal jurisdiction requires that "the maintenance of the suit not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Because the requirement of personal jurisdiction represents an individual right, it can, like other such rights, be waived. By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of challenging jurisdiction, defendant agrees to be bound by that court's determination on the issue of jurisdiction. The manner in which the court determines whether it has personal jurisdiction may include several legal rules and presumptions, as well as fact-finding. Petitioners' non-compliance supports "the presumption that the refusal to produce evidence was an admission of the want of merit in the asserted defense." The sanction took as established the facts (contacts with Pennsylvania) that CBG was seeking to establish through discovery. That a particular legal consequence (personal jurisdiction

of the court over the defendants) follows from this, does not affect the appropriateness of the sanction. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia vs. Hall Texas court did not have jurisdiction over the nonresident corporation. Minimum contacts were not sufficient. Helicol does not have a place of business in Texas and never has been licensed to do business therein. The one trip to Houston by Helicol's CEO for the purpose of negotiating the transportation-services contract with Consorcio/WSH cannot be described or regarded as a contact of a "continuous and systematic" nature. Helicol's acceptance from Consorcio/WSH of checks drawn on a Texas bank is also negligible. Helicol never requested that the checks be drawn on a Texas bank and there was never any negotiation between Helicol and Consorcio/WSH with respect to the location or identity of the bank on which checks would be drawn. The bank on which a check is drawn is a matter left to the discretion of the drawer. Such unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State. The purchases and the related training trips, standing alone, are not a sufficient basis for a State's assertion of jurisdiction. Perkins vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. A cause of action for dividends and failure to issue stock certificates did not arise in the State of Ohio, nor did the company have any business activities therein. Ohio court had jurisdiction. Company was based in the Philippines but the owner carried on continuous and systematic supervision of the company from Ohio. Oregon court did not acquire jurisdiction.

Pennoyer vs. Neff

Neff, who lives in California, was served summons,

for a default judgment in Oregon, through an Oregon publication.

Where the entire object of the action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the defendants (a suit in personam), constructive service is ineffectual. Publication within a State cannot give its court jurisdiction over a non-resident. Since the court did not have jurisdiction to render judgment, the subsequent discovery of the property of the defendant will not make said judgment valid.

Burnham vs. Superior Court of California

Summons was served on Burnham while he was visiting California. He went there on business and to visit his children.

California court had jurisdiction. The Due Process Clause and the test of fundamental fairness do not bar the California court from acquiring jurisdiction through in-state service. Due process does not necessarily require the States to adhere to the unbending territorial limits on jurisdiction in Pennoyer. The "contemporary notions of due process" applicable to personal jurisdiction are the enduring "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" established as the test by International Shoe. Traditionally, U.S. State courts have jurisdiction over persons physically present in their state. Thus, the fact that a defendant voluntarily present in a particular State has a "reasonable expectation" that he is subject to suit there. As a rule the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on his voluntary presence in the forum will satisfy the requirements of due process.

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. vs. Woodson

Audi was sold in NY to NY residents Accident occurred in OK.

OK court did not have jurisdiction.

Product liability action brought in OK.

The mere "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State." Financial benefits accruing to the defendant from a collateral relation to the forum State will not support jurisdiction if they do not stem from a constitutionally cognizable contact with that State. In our view, whatever marginal revenues petitioners may receive by virtue of the fact that their products are capable of use in Oklahoma is far too attenuated a contact to justify that State's exercise of in personam jurisdiction over them.

Asahi Metal Industry Co. vs. Superior Court of California

Motorcycle accident in California. Product-liability suit filed in California against Cheng Shin (Taiwanese tube manufacturer) and Asahi (Japanese tire valve assembler; sells to Cheng Shin)

California court did not have jurisdiction. Considering the international context, the heavy burden on the alien defendant, and the slight interests of the plaintiff and the forum State, the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a California court over Asahi in this instance would be unreasonable and unfair. The facts of this case do not establish minimum contacts such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice.

Keeton vs. Hustler Magazine

Petitioner resides in NY, editor for the magazine. She is suing on the tort of libel. Respondent operates in California, circulates its magazine in New Hampshire.

NH court had jurisdiction. Respondents general circulation of magazines in the forum State suffice to support an assertion of jurisdiction, even if the single publication rule, which enables petitioner to recover in NH damages from all publications throughout the US. Note: That plaintiff is a non-resident is of no moment. Minimum contacts involve the defendant, the forum and the litigation.

Also, NH has a long-arm statute authorizing service of process on non-resident corporations. Lastly, the state has a special interest in exercising jurisdiction over those who commit torts within its territory because torts involve wrongful conduct, which a state seeks to deter. Calder vs. Jones Respondent is a resident of California. Her career is there, too. Petitioner Scout is a reporter, and Calder, an editor, for the National Enquirer. Both are residents of FL. The national magazine has a large circulation in California. Respondents are being sued for libel and were served by mail. Appellee Heitner did not live in Delaware. Greyhound was incorporated in Delaware but is based in Phoenix, Ariz. Alleged civil and criminal acts took place in Oregon. Suit was for sequestration of shares and options that appellants held in the company. (But none of the certificates were found in Delaware) Appellants did not live in Delaware but they were given notice through mail and publication. Delaware law bases jurisdiction not on the status of corporate fiduciaries, but rather on the presence of their property in the State. Delaware has not enacted a statute that treats acceptance of directorship as consent to jurisdiction of the State. Note: This case said that minimum contacts and fundamental fairness test should be satisfied to proceedings in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem; that minimum contacts should exist among the forum, defendant, and cause of action. Pennsylvania court has jurisdiction. Its long-arm statute confers jurisdiction upon those contracting to supply services in Pennsylvania. Note: California court has jurisdiction. The intentional conduct in FL was calculated to cause injury to respondent in CA. (The effects principle place where the injury or damage is caused) Delaware court did not have jurisdiction. Appellants holdings in Greyhound do not provide contacts with Delaware sufficient to support the jurisdiction of that States courts over appellants.

Shaffer vs. Heitner

Zippo Manufacturing Co. vs. Zippo Dot Com

Case involves trademark dilution. Mfg. PA company, based in PA Dot Com CA company, based in CA; has 3,000 subscribers from PA; advertises through 7 internet

access providers in PA Mfg. alleges court has specific jurisdiction General jurisdiction permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for non-forum related activities when the defendant is engaged in systematic and continuous activities in the forum state. Specific jurisdiction permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for forum related activities where the relationship of defendant and forum falls within the minimum contacts framework of International Shoe. A three-pronged test has emerged for determining whether the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is appropriate: (1) the defendant must have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state, (2) the claim asserted against the defendant must arise out of those contacts, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable (related to element of foreseeability) DotComs transactions with PA were not fortuitous. It constantly chose to process PA applications and assign them passwords. Also, the act results in injury in PA. Note: What is the range of contacts that can be produced through the internet? Cybersell Inc. vs. Cybersell Inc. Cybersell Arizona advertises commercial services Cybersell Florida offers web page construction; allegedly infringed on Arizonas trademark The AZ court did not acquire jurisdiction. Internet advertisement alone is not sufficient to subject the advertiser to jurisdiction in the plaintiff's home state. There were no additional factors (like solicitation or commercial activity) to constitute

contacts to allow the court to acquire jurisdiction. Compare this with the Zippo case Do you apply the Intl Shoe case in internet cases? McGee vs. International Life Insurance Co. Petitioner is the mother of Franklin, who bought an insurance policy from an insurance company in Arizona. Respondent, a Texas company, acquired the former but refused to pay insurance after Franklin died. Action was filed in CA. The CA court had jurisdiction. CA has a long-arm statute that subjects foreign corporations to suit in California on insurance contracts with residents of that State even though such corporations cannot be served with process within its borders. NY court had jurisdiction. Service of summons on the agent of respondent was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction. The agent was acting within the scope of her authority. Minnesota court had no jurisdiction. A State may not constitutionally exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over a defendant who has no forum contacts by attaching the contractual obligation of an insurer licensed to do business in the State to defend and indemnify him in connection with the suit. Florida court had jurisdiction by virtue of its longarm statute. A forum may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident where an alleged injury arises out of or relates to actions by the nonresident that are directed toward forum residents, and where jurisdiction would not offend "fair play and substantial justice." Jurisdiction in these circumstances may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum.

National Equipment Rental Ltd. Vs. Szukhent

Petitioner is a NY based company. Respondent resides in Michigan. Suit was filed in NY because respondents failed to pay their lease on the farm equipment.

Rush vs. Savchuk

2 residents of Indiana got into an accident in Indiana. Injured party instituted an action quasi in rem by garnishing the contractual obligation of the drivers insurer, who is licensed to do business in Minnesota.

Burger King Corp. vs. Rudzewicz

An individual's contract with an out-of-state party cannot alone automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum. The prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of dealing, must be evaluated to determine whether a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum. Here, appellee established a substantial and continuing relationship with appellant's Miami headquarters, and received fair notice from the contract documents and the course of dealings that he might be subject to suit in Florida. Piper Aircraft Co. vs. Reyno Respondent, as representative of the estates of several Scottish citizens and residents who were killed in an airplane crash in Scotland during a charter flight, instituted wrongful-death litigation in a California state court against petitioners, which are the company that manufactured the plane in Pennsylvania and the company that manufactured the plane's propellers in Ohio. California court did not have jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may not defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that of the chosen forum. Forum non conveniens determination is committed to the trial court's sound discretion and may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion. The District Court did not act unreasonably in concluding that fewer evidentiary problems would be posed if the trial were held in Scotland, a large proportion of the relevant evidence being located there. The District Court's review of the factors relating to the public interest was also reasonable. Even aside from the question whether Scottish law might be applicable in part, all other public interest factors favor trial in Scotland, which has a very strong interest in this litigation.

Sweet Lines vs. Teves

Condition 14 provides that all actions arising out of the ticket irrespective of where issued shall be filed only in Cebu City.

The transfer of venue clause was contrary to public policy. Such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action of the claimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue actions is the convenience of plaintiffs as well as his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice.

Aznar vs. Garcia

California law prescribes an internal law for its citizens residing therein and a conflict of law rules for its citizens domiciled outside of its jurisdiction. The conflict rule of California refers back to domiciliary law. Philippine court cannot and should not refer the case back to California as such would leave the issue incapable of determination.

Gemperle vs. Schenker

Schenker, a Swiss citizen residing in Switzerland, was served summons through his wife, who was residing in the Philippines.

Jurisdiction acquired because summons were served on Mrs. Schenker, who is the legal representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband. She sued on his behalf and therefore could also be sued. The reservation in her motion to dismiss that she was making a special appearance to contest jurisdiction over her person may be disregarded and nullified by the fact that in her motion she relied not only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her person but also on the lack of earnest efforts. Choice-of-forum clause must be liberally construed. To be reasonable (and in accord with DP), jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Stipulation in a choice-of-forum clause is permissive, not restrictive. It is not a waiver of the right to pursue remedy in other courts, in the

Midgley vs. Ferandos

HSBC vs. Sherman

absence of restrictive language. Minucher vs. CA Labor attach of the Embassy of Iran in the Philippines vs. employee of American embassy Asking for an extension of time to file an answer and filing of counterclaim was a waiver of the defect in the service of summons. No diplomatic immunity from suit where one is being held liable for his personal acts or acts committed beyond his official duties. Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr. A state or intl agency wishing to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity must request the Foreign Office (DFA) of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that it is entitled to immunity. Determination is a political question that is decided by the executive arm and is conclusive upon the courts. A person aggrieved by the acts of a sovereign can ask his own government to espouse his cause through diplomatic channels. Philsec vs. CA Judgment of a foreign court is binding on Philippine courts if there is no showing that it was vitiated by want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. While it is within the discretion of the court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens, it should do so only after the vital facts are established to determine whether special circumstances require the courts desistance. Republic of Indonesia vs. Vinzon Petitioner entered into a contract with respondent for the maintenance and upkeep of the facilities in its embassy. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A sovereign must consent to be sued. Sovereign immunity is recognized only with regard

to public acts or acts jure imperii but not with regard to private acts or jure gestionis. (Restrictive Theory) The mere entering into a contract of a state with a private party does not determine whether or not it is an act jure imperii. Such act is only the start of the inquiry. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, it is an act jure imperii. Establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act jure imperii and it encompasses maintenance and upkeep. Gomez vs. CA First, determine the nature of the action. Second, apply the appropriate rule. Apply rule on summons if it is an action in personam. Seeking affirmative relief is tantamount to voluntary appearance to clothe the court with jurisdiction. To convert an action in personam to quasi in rem, attach property in the Philippines.

N.M. Rothschild vs. Lepanto