Asahi and Worldwide

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Mike12188
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:07 am

Asahi and Worldwide

Postby Mike12188 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:38 pm

I'm confused. Please help.

From what I understand Worldwide says foreseeability that the product could end up in another state is not enough to satisfy purposeful availment because there was no advertising in the state, etc.

Now O'Connor's plurality opinion in the Asahi case says that mere awareness that goods may be swept into another state is not enough to satisfy purposeful availment - would need something else like marketing or a special design for that state.

Now the sentence that is confusing me:

"Some courts continue to apply a fairly broad stream-of-commerce approach based on World-Wide, and take jurisdiction in cases that the O'Connor approach would not reach."

I'm confused because I thought they were pretty much saying the same thing.

shoeshine
Posts: 1241
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:58 pm

Re: Asahi and Worldwide

Postby shoeshine » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:44 pm

Mike12188 wrote:I'm confused. Please help.

From what I understand Worldwide says foreseeability that the product could end up in another state is not enough to satisfy purposeful availment because there was no advertising in the state, etc.

Now O'Connor's plurality opinion in the Asahi case says that mere awareness that goods may be swept into another state is not enough to satisfy purposeful availment - would need something else like marketing or a special design for that state.

Now the sentence that is confusing me:

"Some courts continue to apply a fairly broad stream-of-commerce approach based on World-Wide, and take jurisdiction in cases that the O'Connor approach would not reach."

I'm confused because I thought they were pretty much saying the same thing.


Did you read Goodyear? It was another split/plurality decision but O'Connor's approach was affirmed.

Also, I think you holding of WWVW is too narrow.

User avatar
Sapientia
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:13 pm

Re: Asahi and Worldwide

Postby Sapientia » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:12 pm

Mike12188 wrote:I'm confused. Please help.

From what I understand Worldwide says foreseeability that the product could end up in another state is not enough to satisfy purposeful availment because there was no advertising in the state, etc.

Now O'Connor's plurality opinion in the Asahi case says that mere awareness that goods may be swept into another state is not enough to satisfy purposeful availment - would need something else like marketing or a special design for that state.

Now the sentence that is confusing me:

"Some courts continue to apply a fairly broad stream-of-commerce approach based on World-Wide, and take jurisdiction in cases that the O'Connor approach would not reach."

I'm confused because I thought they were pretty much saying the same thing.


I was confused about this, also. There's a line in WWV that talks about the stream of commerce - “the forum state does not exceed its powers under the due process clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce w/ the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state."

This has been interpreted two different ways - the O'Connor way and the Brennan way.

Pretty sure that's all you need to know for the stream of commerce stuff.

User avatar
Mike12188
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Asahi and Worldwide

Postby Mike12188 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:00 pm

Sapientia wrote:
Mike12188 wrote:I'm confused. Please help.

From what I understand Worldwide says foreseeability that the product could end up in another state is not enough to satisfy purposeful availment because there was no advertising in the state, etc.

Now O'Connor's plurality opinion in the Asahi case says that mere awareness that goods may be swept into another state is not enough to satisfy purposeful availment - would need something else like marketing or a special design for that state.

Now the sentence that is confusing me:

"Some courts continue to apply a fairly broad stream-of-commerce approach based on World-Wide, and take jurisdiction in cases that the O'Connor approach would not reach."

I'm confused because I thought they were pretty much saying the same thing.


I was confused about this, also. There's a line in WWV that talks about the stream of commerce - “the forum state does not exceed its powers under the due process clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce w/ the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state."

This has been interpreted two different ways - the O'Connor way and the Brennan way.

Pretty sure that's all you need to know for the stream of commerce stuff.

Ahh great. I came back here to write that it wasn't sure if that's what they were referring to in ASahi. Thanks a lot.

apl6783
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Asahi and Worldwide

Postby apl6783 » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:43 am

Stop reading cases and start listening to Richard D. Freer's audio lecture. He teaches you the entire course in 9 hours. The part about PJ is 30 minutes to an hour or so, and you'll understand it perfectly after that.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests