Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Civil Procedure - Coggle Diagram
Civil Procedure
Personal Jurisdiction (Can the P sue D in this state)
Power over the defendant himself
In personam Jurisdiction
General
Defendant can be sued in this forum for a claim that arose anywhere in the world
Presence in forum (served with process while in forum)
Defendant is domiciled in forum
Specific
Defendant is being sued for a claim that is connected to the defendan's contact with the forum satate.
Sufficient minimum contact with forum (International Shoe)
Purposeful Availment (Hanson)
Is Stream of commerce purposeful availment? (two approaches)
Brennan:
you must have a relevant contact bwteen the defendant and the forum before you even look at the fairnes analysis.
Cannot offend traditional notions of fairness
If the defendant is goint to argue that the jurisdiction is not fair, the burden is that : the defendant must show that this forum is so gravely inconvinient, that the defendant is at a severe disadvantage in the litigation.
CONSTITUTIONAL ANSLYSIS
Pennoyer (traditional bases of inpersonam jurisdiction:
Defendant is served with process while present in the forum.
Defendant's agent is served with process in the forum
defendant is domiciled in the forum.
Defendant consents to PJ
Hess v. Pawloski (1927): non resident motorist statutes upheld by Court. (Specific Jurisdiction) Driver consents to specific jurisdiction for a claim arising form his operation of that motor vehicle. Also, by doing this, driver adopts an agent of service (whomever is the commissioner of motor vehicles). EXPANDS PENNOYER
International Shoe (1945): Not expanding Pennoyer. Not overruling it. Keeps both decisions beside another. There is jurisdiction if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum so that jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and justice.
By 1945, it is clear that you can serve process on the defendant even outside the forum state just so the defenant meets the test, has just minimum contacts at the exercise of jurisdiction
Hanson v. Denckla (1958): Gives insight into the minimum contact requirement. the contact between the defendant and the forum must result from the defendant's purposeful availment. (the defendant must reach out to the forum. the connection between the defendant and the forum cannot be the result of a unilateral act of a third party. it has to result from the defendant's own reaching out to the forum.
World Wide Volkswagen (1980): The New York car dealer and New York distributer did not purposefully avail themselves of Oklahoma. There were no relevant contacts. Even though the car could foreseeably end up there. Foreseeability is relevant, but it is the foreseeability that the defendant could get sued in the forum.
Calder v. Jones (1984): Calder effects test.
1 more item...
Power over the defendant's property
in rem
Burnham v. Superior Court of Caifornia (Divorce Case); NJ husband served while visiting Cali
quasi in rem
First you must have a statute that allows personal jursidiction; then it must be constitutional under due process calsue
Venue
Subject Matter Jurisdiction