Pg. 764: International Shoe Co. v.

Washington
Purposeful availment: To the extent that a corporation exercises the
privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys
Pg. 771: McGee v. International Life Ins. Co (plaintiff is the focus of the activities of
the defendants out of which the suit arises)
Pg. 774: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.: NY state court. Success
on the petition for an accounting would extinguish any claims the beneficiaries
might have against the bank for mishandling the trusts. (court has a right to
determine the interests of all claimants, resident or non-resident, provided its
procedure accords full opportunity to appear and be heard)
Pg. 776; 778-779: Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp (sued
radiator and company that provided the valve)
Commercial transactions, like those of other manufacturers, result in
substantial use and consumption in this State
Enjoys benefits from laws of this state
Increasing specialization of commercial activity and the growing
interdependence of business enterprises it is seldom that a manufacturer
deals directly with consumers in other States.
Stream of commerce theory: If a commercial actor puts its products into the
stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be marketed in the
forum it may be sued in the forum for injuries allegedly resulting there.
The alleged negligence in manufacturing the valve cannot be separated from
the resulting injury; and that for present purposes, like those of liability and
limitations, the tort was committed in Illinois.
The court does not buy the defendants argument that legislature used the
word tortious act instead of tort.
Pg. 779: Feathers
Language of paragraph 2 of NY long-arm state conferring personal
jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary if, in person or through an agent,
hecommits a tortious act within the state is too plain and precise to permit
it to be read as if it were synonymous with commits a tortious act without
the state which causes injury within the state. The mere occurrence of the
injury in this State certainly cannot serve to transmute an out-of-state
tortious act into one committed here within the sense of the statutory
wording.
Pg. 781: Green v. Advance Ross Electric Corp.: Pltf claimed jurisdiction over former
employee for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty that occurred outside Illinois,
arguing tort had an impact inside Illinois because it harmed the companys financial

condition. IL Supreme Court found this effect too remote, reasoning that plaintiffs
interpretation would be tantamount to permitting a corporation operating
nationwide to sue employees, suppliers, customers and perhaps others, at the
companys state of incorporation or at its headquarters no matter how far away
they lived and worked or their contact with the corporation was.
Pg. 775: Hanson v. Denckla (unilateral activity) : While the Supreme Court noted the
continued evolution of the requirements for personal jurisdiction over nonresidents from the rigid rule of Pennoyer v. Neff, (95 U.S. 714, 1877) it also
expressed a desire to halt the demise of all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction
of state courts. Thus the Supreme Court re-iterated the minimum contacts
prerequisite in order to exercise power over a non-resident. The Supreme Court
failed to find such contacts in this case because the Defendant trust company had no
office in Florida, and no business there.
Pg. 785: World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (the mere fact they can foresee
that the article will be circulated and have an effect in California is not sufficient for
an assertion of jurisdiction)
Foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere
likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum state. Rather, it is
that the defendants conduct and connection with the forum State are such
that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
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. 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 States
exercise of in personam jurisdiction.
DISSENT: Distributor of automobiles to a multi-state market and a local
automobile dealer who makes himself part of a nationwide network of
dealerships can fairly expect that the cars they sell may cause injury in
distant States and that they may be called onto defend a resulting lawsuit
there.
Pg. 787: Kulko v. California Superior Court: The Court found that the single act of
permitting his daughter to spend more time in California than required under a
separation agreement was insufficient to establish the minimum contacts with
California such that it would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice to assert personal jurisdiction over appellant.
Pg. 799: West American Insurance Co. v. Westin, Inc.: Insurer of vehicle operated by
an 18-year-old Minnesota resident who was involved in Minnesota automobile
accident on returning from bar in a Wisconsin border city, where she met legal
drinking age, sued the bar seeking indemnity or contribution. The District Court,

Ramsey County, Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., J., dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction,
and insurer appealed. The Supreme Court, Peterson, J., held that: (1) under present
Supreme Court's decisions, primary focus is on defendant's interests and
defendant's contacts with the forum state and convenience of defending in the
forum does not alone make exercise of jurisdiction over foreign defendant
constitutionally permissible, and (2) purposeful contacts were lacking where
defendant's only demonstrable contact with Minnesota was the insured's unilateral
activity in driving to Minnesota, notwithstanding that Minnesota was the only forum
where a remedy was available.
Pg. 801: Calder v. Jones (adopts the effects test even if Kulko didnt) (forum state is
the focal point of the story pg. 807)
Jurisdiction over petitioners is proper based on effects of their Florida
conduct in California. Their intentional and allegedly tortious actions were
expressly aimed at California. They knew article would have potentially
devastating impact on respondent and knew brunt of injury would be felt by
respondent in the State she lives and works where National Enquirer has its
largest circulation
Pg. 803: Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (cases which hold jurisdiction over
manufacturer should not be applied to the welder who has no control over and
derives no direct benefit from his employers sales in that distant State)
Pg. 803: Keeton v. Hustler (plaintiffs lack of contacts will not defeat otherwise
proper jurisdiction)
Under single publication rule (that all damages sustained in all jurisdictions
are recoverable in one action), plaintiff sought in the second suit to recover
for injuries suffered from the nationwide circulation of the defamation.
New Hampshire had sufficient interest in redressing injuries that occurred
within the state because its residents were allegedly misled about the
plaintiff.
(1) publisher's regular circulation of magazines in forum state was
sufficient to support assertion of jurisdiction in action based on contents of
the magazine, and same was true even if court of the forum and thus of the
United States District Court would apply so-called single publication rule to
enable petitioner to recover in the state for damages from publications of
alleged libel throughout the United States;
(2) that statutes of limitations in every jurisdiction except New Hampshire
had run on plaintiff's claim had nothing to do with the jurisdiction of court
within New Hampshire to adjudicate the claims, and question of
applicability of New Hampshire's statute of limitations to claims for outof-state damages would present itself in course of litigation only after
jurisdiction was established; and

(3) it is not required that plaintiff have minimum contacts with forum state
before permitting state to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident
defendant.

Pg. 804: Gordy v. Daily News, L.P.

Berry Gordy, former president of Motown Records, filed suit in CA claiming
story in New York Daily News defamed him. The story was not about
California activities of Gordy and did not mention California. More than 99%
of circulation of paper was distributed within 300 miles of NYC. But News did
deliver 13 copies of daily edition and 18 copies of Sunday edition to
California recipients. Jurisdiction was upheld it is reasonable to expect the
bulk of the harm from defamation of an individual to be felt at his domicile.
CONTRAST GORDY WITH: Pg. 804: Fielding v. Hubert Buda Media, Inc.:
Plaintiff, originally Texan but living in Europe, sued for libel due to
defendants publication of story asserting her husband had committed
adultery while living in Berlin. Plaintiff sued in Texas, as 60 issues of
offending magazine were distributed there and alleging story harmed her
reputation among her family and friends in Texas.
No jurisdiction because articles concerned German activities of individuals in
Germany, and Germany is the focal point of both story and harm suffered.
Madara v. Hall (pg. 805)
A rock star gave a telephonic interview from NY, his home, to a magazine
published in CA that was distributed nationwide. Court held that jurisdiction
was improper when he was sued for Florida for comments made in interview
about a Florida resident. Halls mere awareness that small number of
magazine copies would go to Florida is not enough to justify exercise of
personal jurisdiction.
Wallace v. Herron (Calder does not ONLY apply to defamation cases)
The key to Calder is that the effects of an alleged intentional tort are to be
assessed as part of the analysis of the defendants relevant contacts with the
forum. Whether these effects, either alone or in combination with other
contacts, are sufficient to support in personam jurisdiction will turn upon
particular facts of each case. (LEFT AT PG. 806)
Indianapolis Colts v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club (pg. 806)
D tried to launch team called Baltimore CFL Colts and were intending to
launch a new football tem called the Baltimore CFL Colts. They intended to
broadcast games involving the new Baltimore team nationwide via cable TV.
Choosing name that would be confusingly similar to Indianapolis Colts,

defendants assumed risk of injuring valuable property located in Indiana.

Someone who commits a tort in Indiana should be amenable to suit there.
Mwani v. Bin Laden (pg. 808)
Kenyans injured by terrorist