School Work

Civ Pro I Outline

1L Civil Procedure I Outline
of 28
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Civil Procedure Outline Part I. Selecting the Proper Court ã   Personal jurisdiction over the parties ã   Subject-matter jurisdiction over the type of suit ã   Defendants must be properly served with process ã   Venue must be correct Personal Jurisdiction 1.    In Personam    Jurisdiction   ã   Exercised over the defendant herself because she has some appropriate connection with the forum ã   Valid judgment creates a personal obligation for defendant and is entitled to full faith in credit in all states Traditional Approach: Pennoyer v. Neff ã   Power of a state court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant is founded upon physical  power of the state as a sovereign of all persons in its territory ã   “Traditional bases” of jurisdiction o   consent: Defendant can be subject to in personam  jurisdiction if they appear in court/consent to jurisdiction. !   Special Appearance : D can make appearance where appearance limited to challenge court’s jurisdiction, does not have to argue case on merits or adhere to court’s jurisdiction. !   Express consent: by contract, by appointment of agent to receive service of process in state (sometimes required) !   Implied consent: by engaging in activity within state, implying consent !   Voluntary Appearance: appearing to argue case on the merits, not contesting personal jurisdiction o   Domicile: State may exercise in personam  jurisdiction over a “resident” thereof- someone domiciled in the state o   Presence within the state: State has jurisdiction over defendant “found within the state” – “presence” – can be served with process while in the forum o   Agent: State may require anyone doing business or entering a contract within state to appoint someone to receive service of process (seen as the defendant’s  being present in that state through an agent) ã    Need for notice to the defendant o   Personal service o   Constructive service: less than personal (like publication) Stretching  Pennoyer    ã   Expansion regarding individuals   o   specific jurisdiction: jurisdiction created only for a claim that arises from activity within the forum      2 o   general jurisdiction: defendant can be sued in the forum for a claim that arose anywhere in the world. Make clear that general jurisdiction appropriate where defendant’s contacts with forum “continuous and systematic” that they are “essentially at home” in the forum !    personal service !   domicile of a person   !   state of incorporation and principal place of business   !   cannot be based on purchases or sales !    Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.   !    Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall    !   Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown   o   Pushed idea of consent to include implied consent (by driving car, you are implying consent to jurisdiction there)  Minimum Contacts Test:  International Shoe   ã   Shift focus to “minimum contacts” o   If not within forum, defendant must have minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice ã   Presence within the forum still viable for in personam jurisdiction ã   Must be foreseeable that the defendant’s activities make her amenable to suit in the forum, foreseeable be “haled into court” there Can the state exercise in personam jurisdiction? After IS: Purposeful Availment ã   Cases give relevant factors for applying the test ã    McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.  – 1957 o   Jurisdiction can be based on a single contact with the forum ã    Hanson v. Denckla  – 1958 o   To have relevant contact, defendant must “purposefully avail” himself of the “privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the  benefits and protections of its laws.” o   Purposeful availment: !   “substantial connection” with state !   engages in significant activities with state    3 !   creates “continuing obligations” between himself and residents o   contacts not accidental, reaching out to the state ã   World  - Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson  – 1980 o   Minimum contacts test has 2 parts: !   Protect defendant from litigation in burdensome forum (fairness) !   Ensures states don’t infringe on sovereignty of other states (insistence on “contact” between defendant and forum) o   Fairness considerations only relevant after Court finds relevant contact ã    Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz    o   Clarify fairness as unconstitutional forum Stream of Commerce:  Asahi    ã    Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court   – 1987 o   O’Connor Theory: Merely putting product into stream of commerce, even with knowledge it will get to forum, is not enough. Must have additional conduct that indicates purpose to serve forum state market. !   This theory endorsed (not upheld) in  J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v.  Nicastro  (2011) o   Brennan Theory: It is a contact to put a product into the stream of commerce, if you can reasonably anticipate it getting into the forum state. That’s enough for  personal jurisdiction. ã    J. McIntyre:   o   Dissent: if you target the US, you can be sued in any state ã   Defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the final state, merely placing item in the stream of commerce is not sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction ã   Placing item in the stream of commerce with another act that shows intent to serve a state is sufficient The  Burnham Case ã   Does service of process within the forum give in personam jurisdiction or does  jurisdiction have to be assessed under International Shoe? ã   2 theories o   Scalia: presence is good enough, traditional bases don’t have to been analyzed under IS o   Brennan: must meet IS standard in every case, traditional bases gone Statutory Analysis   ã   Each state has statutes authorizing courts to exercise personal jurisdiction in some circumstances over nonresidents ã    Nonresident motor statutes ã   Long-arm Statutes o   Grant specific jurisdiction, cover more than motorist o   2 approaches !   Courts of state can exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident to the full extent of the Constitution    4 !   Laundry-list: list of activities that subject nonresident to in personam   jurisdiction 2.    In Rem  and Quasi-in-Rem Jurisdiction ã   Exercise over defendant in the form of property o   Tangible property: yacht, book, etc o   Intangible property: debt, bank accounts o   Real property: land ã   3 requirements for exerting in rem jurisdiction (pre- Shaffer  ) o    presence of the res within its borders o   seizure of property at the commencement of proceedings (attachment) o   opportunity for owner (D) to be heard ã    In Rem: involve ownership of the property, bound to whole world ã   Quasi-in-Rem   o   Adjudicate ownership of property o    No dispute over who owns property, but property relevant because plaintiff can’t obtain in personam  jurisdiction over defendant o   Type I !   When the dispute involves rights of the parties in the property itself !   Close connection between litigation and property provides necessary minimum contacts o   Type II !   When dispute unrelated to the ownership of property !   Defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum ã    No jurisdiction if property not located in state ã    No jurisdiction if property brought in by fraud or force ã   Court’s sole basis of jurisdiction is the property, any judgment is only satisfied on the  property Minimum Contacts and  In Rem  Cases:  Shaffer v. Heitner    ã   “All assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in  International Shoe  and its progeny.” ã   In Rem is really an action against the person, deprives D of property ã   For quasi-in-rem  and in rem  cases: o   Property must be attached at the outset o   Defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum !   Presence of property in the forum probably satisfies requirement
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks