Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

So you think you have a PERSONAL JURISDICTION case - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Yes
        
        General Jurisdiction
        Contacts with the forum state are extensive enough to consider the corporation AT HOME in the state (look for this in corporations)
        OR
        Domiciled (look for this in individuals)
        
        No (try special jurisdiction)
        
        Yes
        -PJ now extends to any claim
        plaintiff has agaisnt defendant
        
        This begins general
        jurisdiction
        
        Daimler AG v. Bauman
        a company can be sued in a state where its contacts give rise to the claim If so then ->specific jurisdiction
        OR where it has its principal place of business or place of incorporation - so continuous and systematic that it could be rendered at home thus granting general jurisdiction
        
        (the case of bloody Argentinian war case)
        
        Subsidiaries of corperations do not establish proper venue in that forum if the only thing association of the facts fo the case are that the subsidiary is present in the forum that the suit was brought
        
        5 more items...
        
        Specific Jurisdiction
        Contacts with the forum are the cause of the suit (minimum contacts)
        AND
        this jurisdiction alligns with due process and fair play
        (International Shoe v. Washington)
        
        No (try general Jurisdiction)
        
        Yes
        
        International Shoe v. Washington
        
        Notes: Advancments in tech and
        travel forced the court to look back on
        
        Pennoyer v. Neff (now moot)
        
        and establish the MINIMUM CONTACTS RULE
        
        Burger King v. Rudzewicz
        purposful availment is a key factor when determing if PJ applies. If the actions were purposfully directed toward the forum state, then PJ applies.
        
        McIntyre Machine v. Nicastro
        
        Arising out of OR relating to defendants contact with the forum
        
        when a corporation benefits form the privilege of doing business within a state, it invokes the state’s laws
        
        A single contact is is not enought to establish jsurisdiction (Helecopteros)
        
        In Rem
        In Personam
        Quasi in Rem
        
        Pennoyer v. Neff
        
        Notes: If service is an issue, jurisdiction may not be proper
        
        State lines are jurisdictional force fields
        
        Quasi in Rem
        
        Shaffer v. Heitner
        
        (the grayhound bus shareholder case)
        
        Quasi in rem jurisdiction only extends to property when the owner has sufficient contacts with the state
      - No
        
        PJ would not be a valid
        claim for improper forum
        -try something else
      - This case tracks back to minimum
        contacts and refocuses on due process
        
        McIntyre Machine v. Nicastro
        
        Arising out of OR relating to defendants contact with the forum
        
        when a corporation benefits form the privilege of doing business within a state, it invokes the state’s laws
- - - - Burger King v. Rudzewicz
        purposeful availment is a key factor when determing if PJ applies. If the actions were purposefully directed toward the forum state, then PJ applies.
        
        McIntyre Machine v. Nicastro
        Arising out of OR relating to defendants contact with the forum
        
        when a corporation benefits form the privilege of doing business within a state, it invokes the state’s laws
        
        This begins general jurisdiction
        Daimler AG v. Bauman
        (the case of bloody Argentinian war case)
        Subsidiaries of corperations do not establish proper venue in that forum if the only thing association of the facts fo the case are that the subsidiary is present in the forum that the suit was brought
        
        BNSF Railway v. Tyrrell
        (The leave montana out of this,
        she had nothing to do with it case)
        Just becuase a corperation has a presence in a state does not mean that it is at home in that state
        -I actually agree with the dissent here, as it treads negatively on the previoulsy established case law, specifically McIntyre v. Nicastro