0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
1K vues1 page
This flowchart summarizes the key considerations for determining personal jurisdiction in a legal case. There are multiple potential bases for jurisdiction, including consent, domicile, minimum contacts, and effects within a state. For minimum contacts, the contacts must be related to the suit and analyzed under either general or specific personal jurisdiction standards, with differing tests depending on if the contact is a physical presence, contract, in-state activity, or effects. The Supreme Court has issued differing opinions on standards for stream of commerce cases. An analysis of fair play and substantial justice is also required.
This flowchart summarizes the key considerations for determining personal jurisdiction in a legal case. There are multiple potential bases for jurisdiction, including consent, domicile, minimum contacts, and effects within a state. For minimum contacts, the contacts must be related to the suit and analyzed under either general or specific personal jurisdiction standards, with differing tests depending on if the contact is a physical presence, contract, in-state activity, or effects. The Supreme Court has issued differing opinions on standards for stream of commerce cases. An analysis of fair play and substantial justice is also required.
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
This flowchart summarizes the key considerations for determining personal jurisdiction in a legal case. There are multiple potential bases for jurisdiction, including consent, domicile, minimum contacts, and effects within a state. For minimum contacts, the contacts must be related to the suit and analyzed under either general or specific personal jurisdiction standards, with differing tests depending on if the contact is a physical presence, contract, in-state activity, or effects. The Supreme Court has issued differing opinions on standards for stream of commerce cases. An analysis of fair play and substantial justice is also required.
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
• Objections waived JRD for divorce Are D’s contacts related if not raised in pre- where one spouse to the suit? answer motion or is domiciled in the answer • D may designate agent in the forum to accept service of process GENERAL IN SPECIFIC IN • Forum Selection PERSONAM JRD PERSONAM JRD Clauses (must be reasonable)
DOMICILE TRANSIENT JRD CONTRACTS IN-STATE IN-STATE EFFECTS STREAM OF COMMERCE
Individuals Scalia • Nature of ACTIVITY • For intentional Brennan • Personal • Valid b/c it’s a prior • Conducting torts, JRD if D • Injecting goods into the stream of presence and traditional notion of fair negotiation business in knew that the commerce should suffice to intent to remain play and substantial s the state brunt of the support JRD • Status considered justice • Reaping injury would be O’Connor • Contemplat at time of filing • UNLESS “traditional” ed future benefits/ felt by the forum • Awareness that product may be Corporations refers to how one is consequenc protections or by a particular sold in forum isn’t enough to • PPB served person in the show sufficient contacts es of of the laws • HQ Brennan forum entering of the state • P needs to show D’s intent to • State of • D was in forum state into K Websites purposefully avail itself of the Incorporation voluntarily • Fairness • Terms of K • Passive sites – forum state’s market by: • Contacts must be o Low burden to • Course of not enough o Designating product for continuous and systematic D interactivity for market in the forum state; • Mere purchases o Foreseeability JRD o Advertising in the forum and related trips, o Purposefully • Internet business state; standing alone availing himself sites w/ sales o Channeling regular advice of the benefits generated from to customers in the forum of the forum the forum state – state; or state FAIR PLAY ANALYSIS o Marketing product • Usu. valid – at least 1. D’s burden of litigating in challenged through distributor as when there’s ≥ forum presence than in sales agent in state 2. P’s Interest (where else could P litigate?) Burnham Stevens 3. Forum state’s interest (is P a resident of Exceptions • Held (but didn’t decide) there’s forum?) 4. Efficiency (location of witnesses, evidence)