Personal jurisdiction claim arising from the contacts

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
linkx13
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:27 pm

Personal jurisdiction claim arising from the contacts

Postby linkx13 » Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:57 pm

SCOTUS hasn't quite clarified what the phrase means to help us figure out whether a court has general or specific jurisdiction. Is there any other clarification out there?

User avatar
chargers
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Personal jurisdiction claim arising from the contacts

Postby chargers » Tue Dec 02, 2014 1:23 am

I'll preface this by letting you know I'm a 1L..

I don't really think there is any specific indicator that automatically lets you know which one applies, it's just based on the relatedness of the claim being brought to the defendant's contact with the forum. For example, in Mcgee the defendant's contact with the forum was that they solicited a California resident to sign up for an insurance plan, and the claim was for a breach of that very contract. So the claim was extremely related to the contact, thus it was specific jurisdiction. I can't really think of a good example for general jurisdiction, but usually if the plaintiff is trying to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on a contact in the forum, but the claim isn't really a result of that contact than it would be general jurisdiction.

Hopefully I sort of answered your question.

User avatar
2807
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:23 pm

Re: Personal jurisdiction claim arising from the contacts

Postby 2807 » Tue Dec 02, 2014 1:50 am

Welcome to the law.

It is not about "right answers"

It is about "right arguments"

There is only analyzation.

Stop trying to solve things, and you will start to understand your place in this.

Onward !

User avatar
Power_of_Facing
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:36 pm

Re: Personal jurisdiction claim arising from the contacts

Postby Power_of_Facing » Tue Dec 02, 2014 1:57 am

A human defendant is subject to general jurisdiction if he or she is personally served in the forum state (Burnham), if he or she consents to jurisdiction (for instance, by appearing in court to argue a case on the merits), or if he or she is a domiciliary (resident + intent to stay) of the forum state. If the defendant is a corporation, it may be subject to general jurisdiction where it is incorporated and where its principal place of business is located, or, colloquially, where it is "at home" (Daimler). This is probably where the corporate headquarters is located, but it could arguably be construed as the location where the corp does most of its manufacturing, or some other such place of principal business.

McGee is a case of specific jdxn. Int'l Life's liability arose out of its contacts with CA. In general jdxn, the liability facts have no bearing on whether or not the defendant can be properly hailed into court.

1L analysis, so it could be off.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], mikecanary, newhere21, wg6524 and 7 guests