Top Law Schools

How do you structure a response to a specific in personam jurisdiction hypo?

My method basically consists of determining statutory basis (Rule 4(k)(1)(A) and long arm statute), then diving into the constitutional analysis (contacts and fairness). But within the contacts analysis, everything seems so... unstructured. (At least compared to responding to a torts or crim hypo, which is very methodical and systematic.) I feel like when I do the contacts analysis, my thoughts are all over the place and don't lend themselves to any sort of structure. Purposeful availment, foreseeability, Calder effects, internet cases, stream of commerce cases... Everything seems so interrelated that I can't figure out a way to write a neat, structured response.

Anyone have any tips or advice?

Anyone...? I know the question is somewhat broad, but it'd be great to hear other peoples' approaches.

(Keep in mind that this is the way my prof seemed to want it).

First I state that 4k1 says look to the long arm.

Then I look to the long arm (we use the IL one). I got to the section for general jurisdiction (section b) and analyze whether there is general jurisdiction.

Then back to the long arm to try and fit the action in the hypo under the one or more of the specific actions that are covered under the long arm (section a). I then note that even if the action doesn't fit in to one of those categories, the statute stretches personal jurisdiction to the constitutional limits (section c) so it basically covers all actions that would be okay under a Shoe test.

Then I do min contacts analysis. I first use the cases that have the same cause of action as the hypo. Then I use the other ones if they could be applicable.

Then I do fairness analysis, using the cases similar to the way above.


ETA: I see you're more focused on the Shoe test. All I would say is that I started with the causes of action that were the same or similar first and then went on to other tests/cases that could be applicable. I definitely made sure to do min contacts and fairness as separate analyses even if I was bringing up a case in both sections.

Thanks for this. I think it gives me more structure to my contacts analysis. Makes sense to just go case by case, starting with similar cases. PJ analysis is strange to me since you have to analogize or distinguish between cases, whereas crim or torts, for example, are not so case heavy. The latter is definitely easier for me to do. Exam's not until Thursday, but I have Property on Monday. Definitely gotta do more practice tests after property is over though...