CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

(housing, friendships, future exams, all things 2018)
KDgirl
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 11:10 am

CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby KDgirl » Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:42 pm

Can someone help me with personal jurisdiction for civ pro? I am using different outlines and combining them to bring into the final exam but I cannot find an updated version that is clear on specific v general. Also, can someone help clear up the changes that Daimler case made from International Shoe? I get confused on that for some reason. TYIA.

User avatar
NoBladesNoBows
Posts: 1118
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby NoBladesNoBows » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:49 pm

Last edited by NoBladesNoBows on Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Big Red
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby Big Red » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:00 pm

in a sense I guess International Shoe and Daimler are related in that both exist on the same spectrum re: magnitude of contacts

single contact---?----Minimum Contacts-----Systematic and Continuous

I think blades gave you a pretty good summary, if you can distinguish between specific and general jxn you can understand why those two cases are easily distinguishable

User avatar
Big Red
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby Big Red » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:04 pm

So I guess on the topic of Daimler, doesn't RBG assume daimler constitutes minimum contacts for specific jxn of the international corp without actually settling that issue? This inspired me to go look at a casebrief and now we have dissonance between the internet and my notes

User avatar
rnoodles
Posts: 8462
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:52 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby rnoodles » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:24 pm

Simply, general jurisdiction requires systematic and continuous contacts (like in Shoe) and specific jurisdiction is just that, jurisdiction arising out of certain/specific contacts with the forum (some places require D's contacts/activities to substantially relate to P's cause of action, for example).

User avatar
NoBladesNoBows
Posts: 1118
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby NoBladesNoBows » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:27 pm

Last edited by NoBladesNoBows on Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NoBladesNoBows
Posts: 1118
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby NoBladesNoBows » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:36 pm

Last edited by NoBladesNoBows on Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rnoodles
Posts: 8462
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:52 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby rnoodles » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:42 pm

NoBladesNoBows wrote:
rnoodles22 wrote:Simply, general jurisdiction requires systematic and continuous contacts (like in Shoe) and specific jurisdiction is just that, jurisdiction arising out of certain/specific contacts with the forum (some places require D's contacts/activities to substantially relate to P's cause of action, for example).

I originally posted something saying Shoe was specific not general jx, but in looking back more it seems that there was no specific/general distinction at that time. Today, however, Shoe would almost certainly not qualify for general jx, because it was not incorporated in WA and WA was a relatively minor place of business (just enough to establish minimum contacts). The importance of Shoe is overturning Pennoyer and creating the concept of minimum contacts.


I'll defer because you've obviously put more thought into this than I did man, but I will say my prof said Int. Shoe was predicated on a theory of general jurisdiction even though Benguet and Helicopteros weren't until much later (like Helicopteros came ~40 or so years later). Anyway, I just said this b/c I think it's important for OP to realize that no matter what we say, what her prof says is considerably more important. So it's probably best to go talk to your prof, OP. Good luck!

User avatar
NoBladesNoBows
Posts: 1118
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby NoBladesNoBows » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:44 pm

Last edited by NoBladesNoBows on Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rnoodles
Posts: 8462
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:52 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby rnoodles » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:46 pm

NoBladesNoBows wrote:
rnoodles22 wrote:
NoBladesNoBows wrote:
rnoodles22 wrote:Simply, general jurisdiction requires systematic and continuous contacts (like in Shoe) and specific jurisdiction is just that, jurisdiction arising out of certain/specific contacts with the forum (some places require D's contacts/activities to substantially relate to P's cause of action, for example).

I originally posted something saying Shoe was specific not general jx, but in looking back more it seems that there was no specific/general distinction at that time. Today, however, Shoe would almost certainly not qualify for general jx, because it was not incorporated in WA and WA was a relatively minor place of business (just enough to establish minimum contacts). The importance of Shoe is overturning Pennoyer and creating the concept of minimum contacts.


I'll defer because you've obviously put more thought into this than I did man, but I will say my prof said Int. Shoe was predicated on a theory of general jurisdiction even though Benguet and Helicopteros weren't until much later (like Helicopteros came ~40 or so years later). Anyway, I just said this b/c I think it's important for OP to realize that no matter what we say, what her prof says is considerably more important. So it's probably best to go talk to your prof, OP. Good luck!

Yea when in doubt go with your prof. And I'm not actually sure whether it's considered general or specific, just want to clarify that it wouldn't qualify for general today (so if there's a similar question on an exam that's clearly set present day, it's a trap).


Lol this could help, blades. My exam's all M/C so this could maybe be a trap question. If I get it wrong though, it's on you

User avatar
NoBladesNoBows
Posts: 1118
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby NoBladesNoBows » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:54 pm

Last edited by NoBladesNoBows on Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KDgirl
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 11:10 am

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby KDgirl » Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:36 pm

Thanks everyone for the responses.

Someone emailed me this and it seemed helpful:

PJx = look for long-arm statute giving Jx to the forum state and any Pennoyer bases for Jx (service in forum state, etc.)

Specific Jx = isolated activity giving rise to the claim
• International shoe - minimum contacts + 5 fairness factors
• Worldwide Volkswagen - purposeful availment of the forum state such that the party could reasonably foresee being haled into court there, then look at fairness factors
• Burger King - Contracts minimum contacts (place for performance, place of negotiations, etc.)
• Stream of commerce (Nicastro/Asahi) - Kennedy/O'Connor approach or Ginsburg/Brennan approach
• Intentional tort/defamation/internet - effects intended to be felt in the forum state good for minimum contacts (forget the case name)

General Jx = continuous and systematic activity not giving rise to the claim
• This is where Daimler fits in - has nothing to do with Intl. Shoe b/c General Jx and Specific Jx are separate concepts

User avatar
Big Red
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby Big Red » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:04 pm

isn't that last case Zippo?

stoopkid13
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:31 am

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby stoopkid13 » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:27 pm

Big Red wrote:isn't that last case Zippo?


I thought Zippo was more about how the internet intersects with personal jurisdiction. The court reasons that a website's interactivity and whether it targets a certain group could be used in evaluating whether the website constitutes purposeful availment.

The intentional torts cases (at least for me) was Calder v Jones.

User avatar
rnoodles
Posts: 8462
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:52 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby rnoodles » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:55 pm

stoopkid13 wrote:
Big Red wrote:isn't that last case Zippo?


I thought Zippo was more about how the internet intersects with personal jurisdiction. The court reasons that a website's interactivity and whether it targets a certain group could be used in evaluating whether the website constitutes purposeful availment.

The intentional torts cases (at least for me) was Calder v Jones.


Calder is right. It's also probably Keeton v. Hustler, if memory serves?

fbuster
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:49 am

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby fbuster » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:34 am

Hypo 1 -- McDonuts creates donuts and sells them all over America! They are located in Iowa, but everywhere in the USA loves Donuts, so McDonuts are all over the place.. In NY, McDonuts sell at this coffee shop called Caffeine R' Us.. the sales from this Caffeine R Us is 5% of McDonuts profit in America! Xavier gets addicted to McDonuts that he has been purchasing at Caffeine R' Us(NY) and ends up gaining 200 lbs so his wife leaves him and he gets coronary heart disease. Xavier sues McDonuts for healthcare bills and emotional distress of his family leaving him in NY.

McDonuts' specific contacts in NY gave rise to the claim [Int. Shoe], therefore PJ exists for McDonuts in NY despite being in Iowa.

Hypo 2 -- McDonuts actually make their Donuts from killing sea lions and using their fat as a secret ingredient. Valentino lives in NY, but his sea lion swam all the way to FL, where McDonut's hunters killed his sea lion. Now Valentino wants to sue McDonut's for the death of his sea lion. Since Caffeine R' Us is in NY and a contact of McDonuts, Valentino wants to sue McDonuts in NY. Its convenient for Valentino to just chill in NY since he already lives there, they also have harsh crimes against unjust sea lion killings.. and after all his pet was killed so why should he have to travel to sue them?

This is like Daimler -- No PJ over McDonuts despite having contacts in NY, because they are not "at home" in NY nor did their specific contacts in NY give rise to this claim. They could only sue McDonuts in Iowa (principal place of business / location of corporation) or in FL (where the sea lion was slayed)

general jurisdiction would be Iowa [Daimler], specific jurisdiction would be FL [Shoe].

hope this helps :D

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 7658
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby BVest » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:28 am

(Meanwhile your property prof is in the corner muttering about wild animals and the rule of capture)

User avatar
Big Red
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby Big Red » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:11 pm

fbuster wrote:They could only sue McDonuts in Iowa (principal place of business / location of corporation)


just fyi principal place of business/nerve center and place of incorporation can be different

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: CIV PRO 1 FINAL QUESTIONS

Postby pancakes3 » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:23 pm

BVest wrote:(Meanwhile your property prof is in the corner muttering about wild animals and the rule of capture)


Tag this joke, 1L's. 9/10 joke as far as law jokes go, would laugh again.




Return to “TLS Class of 2018 Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests