Glannons E+E Civ Pro 9/11/2014 3:38:00 PM

CH.1
Examples Pg. 12 (Personal Jurisdiction)

1. No, the court does not have jurisdiction over Healy as she has no contacts
in ND and the accident happened in MN. The minimum contacts must be of
the defendant and not the plaintiff. Austin cannot sue her in ND.

2. No, SD cannot have personal jurisdiction over Austin in as although it is
part of his sales territory the suit would be unrelated to his contacts within
SD. Although under Pennoyer, if Healy can serve Austin in SD he will be
subject to their jurisdiction for being in the state.

3. MN could have jurisidiction over Austin in a suit as he purposefully availed
himself of the states laws by driving on their roads (and this is related to the
claim). This act of driving provides minimum contacts.

4. No the court would not have jurisdiction over Smoky Mountain VW as by
Volkswagen precedent, although it is reasonably foreseeable that Hudson
would drive the car to another state, the liability of the chattel does not
travel with the injured. If so a retailer would be liable in every single state in
which someone carried their products even though the retailer did not
purposefully avail themselves of the state law.

5. No jurisdiction is also not proper here as Smoky Mountain VW could have
foreseen that Ford would driven to FL but it did not avail itself of FL laws.

6. Yes jurisdiction in PA is possible her as De Soto reached out to a citizen
of PA about purchasing the car, recognized that the car would be used in PA,
and realizing that a suit would likely be brought in PA if there was an issue.
His single contact with PA leaves him open to jurisdiction.

7. Yes there is personal jurisdiction in TN as Smoky Mountain VW advertised
in TN. The claim arises directly out of deliberate efforts to serve the TN
market. The dealership would bear the responsibility though as they were
the ones who advertised, not the salesman De Soto.

8. Yes personal jurisdiction is still possible here as they still advertised in TN.
Even though Smoky Mountain VW only advertises there occasionaly and
derives very small revenue from TN only minimum contacts are required and
the advertisement meets that.

9. There would be no jurisdiction in GA here as DeSoto was not in GA trying
to solicit business, he happened to be talking to Lenoir who asked DeSoto
for his card, thus initiating the future sale. DeSoto would not be reasonably
expected to think that his business card would grant jurisdiction.

10. No, jurisdiction would not exist as Accu-cut sold it to a wholesaler in
France and couldnt be expected to know it was headed to Colorado for sale.

11. Similar to above, except Accu-cut sells to a wholesaler in Illinois. Five
mowers also doesnt satisfy the concurring opinion in McIntyre as it doesnt
represent continuous business just an isolated one time sale. Similar to
McIntyre, they knew it was intended for the US market but not specifically
Colorado and they didnt have any contacts with Colorado so no jurisdiction.

12. No, the sale of a single mower from the distribution company to
someone in Colorado would not count as continuous business with the state.
They also did not advertise or target Colorado in any way. No jurisdiction.

13. In this case in which he is injured in Colorado but sues in Illinios where
Accu-cut sends the mowers there would be jurisdiction. Accu-cut knows its
selling its mowers into Illinios and is purposefully availing itself of their laws
and having a purposeful contact with the distributor.

14. Under Justice Breyers McIntyre concurrence, the continuous sale of
mowers into Colorado would make jurisdiction in Colorado ok for Accu-cut.

15. Yes, Moline will be under jurisdiction in Colorado as they were the ones
who sold the five mowers into the state.

16. Yes, if Accu-cut advertised its mowers in Colorado it would be under
their jurisdiction. It targeted the forum state and established purposeful
contact.

17. No, although this is a close case, Studebaker published his ad in a
national magazine that did not target Indiana directly. Andretti initiated the
contact and came to Michigan to see the car. Although Studebaker actually
arranged the deal by phone once Andretti was back in Indiana and had a
deliberate contact with the forum state the overall circumstances weigh
against jurisdiction in Indiana.

18. Similarly to 17, although Studebaker advertised the car over the internet
the website was not targeted toward Indiana as a jurisdiction. Based on the
Zippo test the website was more on the passive side as it did not engage the
customer in any way that would avail the seller of rights in customers state.

19. Yes jurisdiction is likely, she purposefully availed herself of the laws of
California by driving on their roads. Even though it seems fair and
unreasonable as the plaintiff is a multibillion dollar company and defendant
is a poor elderly women, California has an interest to regulate conduct and
compensating injuries that occur in its territory. Witnesses and evidence will
also be in California.

20. A. For a defendant to purposefully avail himself in a state he cannot lack
minimum contacts as the basis for purposeful availment is these contacts
within the state. Minimum contacts jurisisidiction is based on the defendants
deliberate decision to act in the forum state for his own purposes.
B. This is referencing general jurisdiction and generally engaging in small
amount of deliberate acts would not be sufficient for general jurisdiction,
only specific jurisdiction related to the deliberate acts (and the minimum
contacts).
9/11/2014 3:38:00 PM

9/11/2014 3:38:00 PM