CivilProcedureIOutline.docVIP

Civil Procedure I Outline Personal Jurisdiction Power Over The Person-In personam jurisdiction Traditional Basis of Jurisdiction persons served while present in the state Burnham v. Superior Court- fortuitous or brief presence is sufficient if you tag them while they are there - fairness not an issue Tickle v. Barton- can’t use trickery or fraud to bring someone in - No real volition(no real presence persons domiciled in the state persons consenting to jurisdiction explicitly or implicitly Hess v. Pawloski (1927) - implied consent by driving on roads according to statute different than contract, which can’t be construed as consent physical intrusion in state, use of state resources concern about physical safety vs. fiscal fallout Modern Jurisdictional Analysis- “Fair play and substantial justice” Minimum contacts International Shoe v. Washington (1945) what constitutes sufficient “presence” in a state to establish jurisdiction over entity in a way that does not offend traditional notions of justice? Due process requires minimum contacts with forum for in personam jurisdiction over entity not found within state boundaries Solicitation of business, commissioned salespeople, continuous business, claim related to contacts(Jurisdiction TEST: Balancing of contacts (continuous/isolated) and relatedness of contacts (unrelated/related) to claim gives rise to 2 different types of jurisdiction General: (’s contacts are so continuous and substantial that he can be sued for anything within the state (i.e. related/nonrelated) Specific: Contacts are only sufficient for jurisdiction over claim arising from those contacts. “Presence” for general jurisdiction is not established through contacts. TEST: Whether a cause of action “arises out of” or relates to contacts is