Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
44 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Pennoyer v. Neff
|
In state process subjects one to personal jurisdiction & to satisfy in rem jurisdiction the land must be attached to the court before the trial.
|
|
Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering
|
Issue here was one of proper IRS handling. A claim that doesn't follow the "creation test" can be tried in federal court if the court decides that the state law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.
|
|
Avitts v. Amoco
|
An amended complaint that removes a federal question and was the original basis for removal, will subject the complaint to be remanded for lack of SMJ.
|
|
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
|
Anticipation of a federal defense to a state claim is not enough to bring the state claim in federal court. Only the allegation in this case breach of K is used to determine arising under.
|
|
Osborn v. Bank of the US
|
Interepreted the constitution as granting jurisdiction if only an "ingredient of the original cause" is in the lawsuit.
|
|
Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall
|
"we hold that mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions"
|
|
International Shoe v. State of Washington
|
Established Minimum Contacts Test, for Corporations/People (1) Does D fall within Long Arm Statute (2) Has he purposely availed himself to the state (3) Does it arise out of his contacts with the state (4) Would it be unfair or unreasonable
|
|
Shaffer v. Heitner
|
Where, as in this case, the property serving as the basis for jurisdiction is completely unrelated to the plaintiff’s cause of action, the presence of the property alone, i.e., absent other ties among the defendant, the State, and the litigation, would not support the State’s jurisdiction.
|
|
Gordon v. Steele
|
Domicile: Established as Residence with Intent to remain indefinitely
|
|
Asahi Metal Industries v. Superior Court of California
|
Stream of Commerce, O'Connor, Brennan, O'Connor wants actual knowledge where it is going Brennan doesn't. 5 Rules (1) Is it a heavy Burden (2) Does the state have an interest (3) Is the state claim overly broad (4) Efficiency (5) How does it affect international relations
|
|
Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz
|
The Supreme Court concluded that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the protections of the forum state (Florida) and were, therefore, subject to jurisdiction there. The Court reasoned that the defendants had a "substantial and continuing" relationship with Burger King in Florida and that due process would not be violated because the defendants should have reasonably anticipated being summoned into court in Florida for breach of contract.
|
|
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
|
coming soon
|
|
Piper Aircraft Co v. Reyno (private interests)
|
Private Intersts The private-interest considerations include (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendants
|
|
Piper Aircraft Co v. Reyno (public interests)
|
The public-interest considerations include
• (1) the transferee's familiarity with the governing laws, • (2) the relative congestion of the calendars of the potential transferee and transferor courts, and • (3) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home |
|
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson
|
Chattel is not your agent for service. Foreseeability that one product will be used in another state is not enough.
|
|
McGee v. International Life Insurance Company
|
California's interest in the case, and the fact that the contract was delivered to McGee in California was a enough of a substantial connection to the state.
|
|
Hanson v. Denckla
|
A party must have minimum contacts that are purposeful and deliberate with a state in order for the courts of that state to be able to exercise jurisdiction over that party.
|
|
Mas v. Perry
|
Complete Diversity: It is necessary to have complete diversity to be within federal court. Lousiana Case allowed to remain in federal court
|
|
Swift v. Tyson
|
The court held that the “laws of the several states” in the Act required federal courts to apply state statutory law but not state common law
|
|
Gray v. American Radiator
|
The long arm statute of Illinois was able to grab personal jurisdiction for a tortious act or omission in the state of Illinois for an injury occuring in Illinois because of faulty manufacturing outside of it.
|
|
Bo Jackson v. California Newspapers Partnerships
|
The Court held that defendants' operation of a website available to Illinois web surfers was insufficient to permit the Court to assert general jurisdiction over the defendants. "The mere maintenance of an Internet website is generally not sufficient to exercise general jurisdiction . . .".
|
|
Calder v. Jones
|
A state's courts could assert personal jurisdiction over the author or editor of a libelous article, where the author or editor knew that the article would be widely circulated in the state where the subject of the article would be injured by the libelous assertion.
|
|
St. Paul Mercury v. Red Cab Co.
|
It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.
|
|
Olson Co. v. City of Winona
|
Principal Place of Business for Corporate Domicile: Total Activity and Nerve Center, Court decided that significance of total activity in Mississippi outweighed corporate headquarters in Illinois
|
|
Diefenthal v. C.A.B.
|
Amount in Controversy, only not met if a jury could not reasonably reach a verdict of amount
|
|
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire
|
S. Ct. interpreted Art III § 2 as allowing diversity if there is minimal diversity
|
|
Strawbridge v. Cutris
|
Interpreted 28 USC 1332, requiring complete diversity, while the constitution in art III allows for minimal diversity.
|
|
The Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.
|
A counterclaim alleging a federal issue, in this case patent suit does make the original claim arise from federal law and is not a federal issue for the court
|
|
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
|
If case depends on a construction of Fedearl Law even if arises out of a state law claim then it is still a question of Federal law.
|
|
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson
|
A violation of a federal statute, as part of a claim, is not sufficient for the federal courts to claim original jurisdiction if the statute does not create a private remedies for violations of the statute.
|
|
Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter
|
Federal Law can apply in a state court ?
|
|
Bell v. Hood
|
Jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action under federal law. And that if it is found lacking it should be dismissed on the merits, not for lack of jurisdiction
|
|
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Inc
|
Because Hustler sold thousands of copies of Hustler magazine in NH, it was not unfair for them to expect to be hauled into court for a libelious story
|
|
Young v. New Haven Advocate
|
The internet newspaper was not desigend to attract or serve a Virginia audience but New Haven and thus was not subject to personal jurisdiction there.
|
|
Hess v. Pawloski
|
Old consent to personal jurisdiction case was fine under 14th amendment.
|
|
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King
|
King has done nothing to purposefully avail himself of the benefits of New York. King, like numerous others, simply created a Web site and permitted anyone who could find it to access it. Creating a site, like placing a product into the stream of commerce, may be felt nationwide-- or even worldwide-- but, without more, it is not an act purposefully directed towards the forum state.
|
|
Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise
|
Venue is proper if a "substantail amount" of the act(s) giving rise to the claim occurred there
|
|
MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co.
|
Again, must rely on Private and Public factors, including P and D choice, where arose, convenience, witneess and proof as well as governing laws, congestion and local interest
|
|
Gonzalez v. Chrysler Corp
|
Dismissed for Venue even though mexican court gave essentially no damages for the claim
|
|
Rasoulzadeh v. Associated Press
|
Venue was not dismissed because the lawsuit in IRAN would lead to the death of the person
|
|
Hart v. Terminex International
|
Part of Terminex was a partnership, and the partnership is domiciled where every partner lives, in this case some partners lived in Illinois and it killed SMJ
|
|
Gulf Oil Corp v. Gilbert
|
Again, must rely on Private and Public factors, including P and D choice, where arose, convenience, witneess and proof as well as governing laws, congestion and local interest
|
|
B & W Taxi v. B & Y Taxi
|
Odd case that allowed Federal court to not apply state common law by forum shopping of one cab company.
|
|
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric MFG Co. Inc
|
coming soon
|