.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
hoos89
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

.

Postby hoos89 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:04 pm

/
Last edited by hoos89 on Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
UnfrozenCaveman
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:06 pm

Re: Couple Civ Pro Questions: Personal Jurisdiction

Postby UnfrozenCaveman » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:18 pm

I'm having trouble understanding what you're asking.

1. It's not redundant, and the way you state it is basically what the court says.

2. Continuous and systematic contacts analysis depends on the factual situation.

User avatar
hoos89
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

,

Postby hoos89 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:30 pm

/
Last edited by hoos89 on Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: Couple Civ Pro Questions: Personal Jurisdiction

Postby Blessedassurance » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:37 pm

What does the continuous and systematic contacts analysis look like


Goodyear (that d essentially "feels at home")
Helicopteros
Perkins (ppb? physical office etc)
Rosenburg (regular purchases, even if made at regular intervals may not be enough)
see also burger king (contracts)

aggregate contacts to determine if it may constitute continuous and systematic contacts, such that asserting jurisdiction will comport with our notions of fair play etc...(remember general, means d can be sued for stuff unrelated to the charges, which is asking a lot)

explore forks

i don't remember if i'm missing anything.

there are other issues under general jurisdiction
general tip: get a flowchart

echooo23
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Couple Civ Pro Questions: Personal Jurisdiction

Postby echooo23 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:46 pm

hoos89 wrote:
UnfrozenCaveman wrote:I'm having trouble understanding what you're asking.

1. It's not redundant, and the way you state it is basically what the court says.

2. Continuous and systematic contacts analysis depends on the factual situation.



1. Well it sounds redundant to me. Is there a situation where purposeful availment would be insufficient for the haled in to court part? Or where you didn't have purposeful availment but did have a reasonable expectation of being haled into court? If not then what is the point of that prong? Just to sort of say..well defendant you should have seen this coming?



Int'l Shoe starts everything off by saying if you can reasonably expect to be haled into X court, then that court should have PJ over you. But the question is, when can someone be reasonably expect to be haled into court? You could have witnessed something and expected to be haled, but that doesn't give the court PJ. So the court says, okay, if you've purposefully availed yourself of the laws of X state, then you should reasonably expect to be haled there and the court should have PJ. Then the cases that follow define the contours of how one can purposefully avail himself of the laws of X state.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests