Personal Jurisdiction- Gray vs. Asahi

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
BOSStongrl
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:18 pm

Personal Jurisdiction- Gray vs. Asahi

Postby BOSStongrl » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:28 pm

So my civ pro test is tomorrow- luckily open book/open outline, but this means i need to be more detailed in my answers. SO im having an issue distinguishing between Gray and Asahi (Brennons test). Gray said that if a company elects to sell their product in the state, it will be consitutional to haul them to court- even though it went to another company, in another state, to be assembled, and shipped to another state. I believe Gray was trying to say as long as you're aware that your product will end up there, it is enough because you're derriving benefits from the state, etc. Am i mistaken to believe that Ashahi, under Brennon's test, is exactly the same? I think i'm having a difficult time because I dont believe asahi necessarily overruled any case, just added on. So when I say "they will have jurisdiction if the company put their product in the stream of commerce with the awareness that their product will end up in the state" which case would I cite for this?
Again I could be completely wrong about this, i think im losing my mind, so please correct me if im wrong about anything

SomewhatLearnedHand
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Personal Jurisdiction- Gray vs. Asahi

Postby SomewhatLearnedHand » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:42 pm

BOSStongrl wrote:So my civ pro test is tomorrow- luckily open book/open outline, but this means i need to be more detailed in my answers. SO im having an issue distinguishing between Gray and Asahi (Brennons test). Gray said that if a company elects to sell their product in the state, it will be consitutional to haul them to court- even though it went to another company, in another state, to be assembled, and shipped to another state. I believe Gray was trying to say as long as you're aware that your product will end up there, it is enough because you're derriving benefits from the state, etc. Am i mistaken to believe that Ashahi, under Brennon's test, is exactly the same? I think i'm having a difficult time because I dont believe asahi necessarily overruled any case, just added on. So when I say "they will have jurisdiction if the company put their product in the stream of commerce with the awareness that their product will end up in the state" which case would I cite for this?
Again I could be completely wrong about this, i think im losing my mind, so please correct me if im wrong about anything



First, don't think you need to be more detailed just because its open book. Be detailed in your analysis of the facts and application to the law, but don't think you need to be overly detailed in your rule statements or ever thoroughly describe cases.

I'll start with the disclaimer that the answer depends slightly on how your prof teaches PJX. Given what my prof taught, I don't even have Gray written anywhere in my outline (just checked). My prof taught that Brennan in Asahi says that awareness that your product will end up in the forum state is sufficient to satisfy minimum contacts (because D is deriving economic benefits + lawsuit won't be a surprise + protection under their laws, etc, etc) and then you weigh the strength of this contact against the "reasonableness factors" (burden on D to defend in the forum + P's interest in relief, interest of the forum state) to determine if jurisdiction is appropriate. When analyzing under the Brennan approach you will find there is PJX more often than not.

Note that after McIntyre, the Kennedy plurality and a majority of justices seem to reject this approach and side with O'connor (mere awareness is insufficient- "PJX does not follow the chattel" and you need purposeful availment which requires "action purposefully directed towards the forum state."). Throughout this case line, picture it as two opposing camps represented by Brennan and O'connor's opposing views. Neither one is necessarily "the rule" because of the plurality opinions in the case line (though O'connors position seems to be the favorite amongst the court, and is also applied the most by lower courts). So Brennan's position in Asahi is just an extension of his position in Gray. Hope this helped.

(Edited for clarity)

BOSStongrl
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:18 pm

Re: Personal Jurisdiction- Gray vs. Asahi

Postby BOSStongrl » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:10 pm

Thank you! That definitely helped. My teacher taught us that gray just demonstrated that a “single tort” in the state is considered a substantial connection, and would be considered sufficient for minimum contacts. I think I just need to focus on what my professor taught (as you said), and ignore the rest in a sense. My teacher is quite odd, we were told McIntyre never cleared anything up to and to completely ignore it, and he also told us to analyze the volume, value, hazard test of Asahi (which obviously is not a “real” rule in practice). For some reason I didn’t think it would vary depending on what the professor taught, I assumed “rules are rules”, so thanks for pointing that out!

But everything else you mentioned was quite helpful as well. It seems then Asahi emphasizes the fairness prong (burden on P/D) more heavily than Gray.

SomewhatLearnedHand
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Personal Jurisdiction- Gray vs. Asahi

Postby SomewhatLearnedHand » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:25 pm

BOSStongrl wrote:Thank you! That definitely helped. My teacher taught us that gray just demonstrated that a “single tort” in the state is considered a substantial connection, and would be considered sufficient for minimum contacts. I think I just need to focus on what my professor taught (as you said), and ignore the rest in a sense. My teacher is quite odd, we were told McIntyre never cleared anything up to and to completely ignore it, and he also told us to analyze the volume, value, hazard test of Asahi (which obviously is not a “real” rule in practice). For some reason I didn’t think it would vary depending on what the professor taught, I assumed “rules are rules”, so thanks for pointing that out!

But everything else you mentioned was quite helpful as well. It seems then Asahi emphasizes the fairness prong (burden on P/D) more heavily than Gray.


First rule to understand is what your professor says trumps all- whatever they said is how you should write your exam. Your professor likely said McIntyre didn't clear anything up because it was a plurality opinion with no clear majority. For the exam, the "rules" of personal jurisdiction are the different opinions written by the opposing justices. Like I mentioned, I was taught the two opposing views of O'Connor and Brennan, so on the exam I analyzed the fact pattern under both, determined if there would be jurisdiction for each approach, and then ultimately concluded that the court would decide to follow the O'connor view because that is what most of the justices agree with / is most applied by lower courts.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests