OUTLINE CIVIL PROCEDURE

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

A. LONG ARM STATUTE

1.

B. GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDITION:

1. Tradition ways of asserting jurisdiction.

a. Domicile
b. Presence in state when served.
I. For an Individual

(1) Most states grant their courts in personam jurisdiction over

any defendant who can be served with process within the
borders of the state, no matter how long he was present (i.e.
even if merely passing through) The Supreme Court has upheld
this type of jurisdiction, allowing a transient defendant to be
served with the process for a cause of action unrelated to his
brief presence in the state.

i. Pennoyer Rule:
Notice must be given while non-resident/agent is in state
and property must be attached at the onset of litigation.
ii. Burnham Rule:
Jurisdiction may base solely on physical presence no matter
the reason, so long as their presence was voluntary.
iii. Citizenship in forum state.

II. For a Corporation

(1) State Incorporation

(2) Citizenship in the forum state of incorporation
(3) Continuous and systematic and substantial activity –
remember there was continuous and systematic but probably
not substantial activity in International Shoe: (Minimum
Contacts)
(4) What is substantial – Helicol
i. Helicol Rule:
Due process requirements are satisfied when in
personam jurisdiction is asserted over a nonresident
corporate defendant that has certain minimum contacts
with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit
does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. (Helicols activities were not
 substantial and to meet the requirements the decision
might have been different if they considered Texas a
home)
C. Specific Personal Jurisdiction:

1. Minimum Contacts (plaintiffs contacts are unimportant)

a. International Shoe
This case requires that the defendant have “such minimum contacts”
with the forum that the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and
reasonable. In considering whether there are such contacts a court
will look at two factors.

1. purposeful availment
2. forseeability

b. Keeton (She sued in New Hampshire and didn’t live there)

The defendant’s activities make her amenable to suit in the forum. The
defendant must know or reasonably anticipate that her activities in
the forum render it foreseeable that she may be “hailed into court”
there.

c. Activity must be of such a nature that even a single, irregular, isolated

act will suffice. Not unilateral.

i. McGee (SOLICITATION)
Purchased a life insurance policy by mail from a Texas
company. Decedent regularly mailed premiums from Cali to
the Texas Company, which had no other contacts with the
state.
ii. Hess