CAN A PLAINTIFF GET PJ OVER THIS DEFENDANT?

CASE NAME YES NO

PENNOYER (1877) Every state possesses exclusive
Man who’s property jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons
was taken without and property within its territory; therefore,
sufficient notice and the courts of that state may enter a binding
he wants it back judgment against a non resident only if he
is personally served with process while
within the state, or, if he has property
within the state, if that property is attached
before litigation begins.
INTERNATIONAL Whether due process is satisfied must
SHOE (1945) depend upon quality and nature of the
Company that doesn’t activity in relation to the fair and orderly
want to pay administration of the laws which it was
unemployment tax the purpose of due process clause to
insure. Systematic and continuous
activities within a state have been held to
be enough to subject a corporation to
jurisdiction in a forum state. The nature
and extent of a corporation's contacts with
a state must be evaluated under traditional
concepts of fairness and justice to
determine whether it would be reasonable
to require the corporation to defend a suit
in the state.
MCGEE v. A state may exercise jurisdiction over a
INTERNATIONAL defendant whose contacts with that state
LIFE INS CO. (1957) consist of only a single act, provided that
Insurance co that the act is what gave rise to the claim for
doesn’t want to pay which jurisdiction is being sought, and
claims you can’t sue was deliberately directed toward the state.
me here This case creates specific jurisdiction.
HANSON v. A state may not exercise jurisdiction over
DENCKLA (1958) a defendant if the defendant’s contacts
Old lady’s trust and with the state are insignificant and non-
which greedy family deliberate and the claim does not arise
member is entitled to from those contacts. This case shows how
it one cannot make a claim for specific
jurisdiction.
SHAFFER v. Minimum contacts must exist in order for
HEITNER (1977) in rem jurisdiction to attach (thus only
Man believes officers able to gain in rem jurisdiction if claim
and directors of over ownership of property or due to a
Greyhound suck and hazard of the property); now in personam
wants to sue them and in rem apply the same tests to
and collect their share establish personal jurisdiction. This case
of the stocks. overturns Pennoyer and states that it’s not
good policy to gain jurisdiction over a
defendant by “grabbing” into the forum
state. Thus quasi-in rem is no more; only
exception is if you are unable to locate a
defendant’s domicile in the US (e.g.
international businesses) you may use
quasi-in rem to claim jurisdiction over a
defendant.
WORLD-WIDE In order to subject a defendant to a
VOLKSWAGEN v. jurisdiction in a forum state, the defendant
WOODSON (1980) must have chosen to have some contact
Family trying to sue with that state, otherwise considerations of
as many companies fairness, convenience, and the interests of
as possible for a the state in overseeing the litigation are
faulty gas tank. irrelevant. One cannot reach too far! A
corporation must purposefully avail
themselves onto a state in order to gain
jurisdiction over them.
ASAHI METAL The defendant must purposefully avail
INDUSTRY CO v. himself of the forum by more than just
SUPERIOR COURT putting a product into the stream of
(1987) commerce with expectation that it will
Two foreign reach the forum state, however, such
corporations, one of conduct is enough to satisfy the minimum
which manufactured contacts requirement. Nonetheless, once
part of the tire and it has been established that minimum
the other who contacts exist, the fairness requirement
actually assembled must still be met as well, which will be
the tire, involved in a much harder to do in the case of a non-US
tire blow out resident.
accident.
BURGER KING Once it has been established that a
CORP v. defendant has minimum contacts with a
RUDZEWICZ (1985) state, it is up to the defendant to prove that
Man with Burger being required to defend a suit there
King in Michigan would be “fundamentally unfair.”
does not want to be
sued in Florida.
HELICOPTEROS Here, they try to apply general
NACIONALES DE jurisdiction. Assert that actual claim does
COLOMBIA (1984) not arise out of corporations contacts with
Can the US sue a the state but jurisdiction is permitted due
foreign company that to continous and systematic contacts.
may not have had Mere purchases are not enough to create a
continuous and contact. We cannot over reach into other
systematic contacts countries affairs.
with the US
BURNHAM v. Jurisdiction is based on physical presence
SUPERIOR COURT comports with due process, regardless of
(1990) the defendant’s contacts with the forum
Wife plays tag state. Transient jurisdiction obtained by a
jurisdiction to get defendant’s physical presence in the
divorce settled in her forum state does not violate due process.
new domicile. If you are present in a state and served
with process, you will be held to
jurisdiction within that forum state.