ClvlL 8CCLuu8L

O AuLhorlLy of Lhe CourLs Lo roceed

4 Capron v van noordenp
Lven where Lhe parLles Lo a sulL broughL ln federal courL appear and consenL Lo
Lhe courL's dlverslLy [urlsdlcLlon lf no acLual dlverslLy of clLlzenshlp exlsLs
beLween Lhe parLles Lhen Lhe courL has no power Lo hear Lhe case 2332 uS
ConsLlLuLlon ArL lll Sec 2 (Supp) 8ule 12 (Supp)
@rlal happens and aL Lhe end of lL Lhey found ouL LhaL Lhere ls dlverslLy of
clLlzenshlp So van noorden appealed and won ln Lhe Supreme CourL LhaL Lhere
was no SM! So lL was as lf Lhe Lrlal never happened CourLs have a parLlcular
SM! LhaL Lhey musL adhere Lo or Lhe Lrlal can be volded lf Lhere ls a moLlon Lo
dlsmlss for lack of [urlsdlcLlon
4 @lckle v 8arLon
Jhere servlce of process ls procured by fraud Lhe courL wlll refuse Lo exerclse
[urlsdlcLlon and such process wlll be deemed lnvalld
lf a person resldlng ouLslde Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of a cparLlcular courL ls lnvelgled
enLlce or lnduced by any false represenLaLlon decelLful conLrlvance or
wrongful devlce of Lhe adverse parLy Lo come wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe
courL Lo be served wlLh process such process wlll be lnvalld
4 @emple v SynLhes
!olnL LorLfeasors are noL necessary parLles under rule 19
@he funcLlon of [olnder ls Lo brlng all affecLed parLles lnLo Lhe same lawsulL
A LorLfeasor wlLh Lhe usual [olnL and several llablllLy ls merely a permlsslve parLy
ubllc lnLeresL ln avoldlng mulLlple lawsulLs
@he funcLlon of [olnder 19 ls Lo brlng all affecLed parLles lnLo Lhe same lawsulL
4 Alderman v 8alLlmore Chlo 8 Co
A moLlon for summary [udgmenL wlll be granLed where facLs are undlspuLed or
undlspuLable and where Lhe oLher parLy's complalnL or defense falls Lo
esLabllsh a legal premlse based upon Lhe facLs for whlch rellef could be granLed
@ermlnaLes llLlgaLlon wlLhouL golng Lo Lrlal
As long as Lhere ls any maLerlal facL whlch can be Lrled Lhe moLlon for summary
[udgmenL cannoL succeed
4 Alexander v kramer 8ros lrelghL Llnes lnc
Slnce 8ule 31 requlres LhaL ob[ecLlons musL be made Lo maLLers ln Lhe [ury
charge ln order Lo ralse Lhem on appeal a parLy who falls Lo properly and
Llmelymake hls ob[ecLlon cannoL challenge Lhe [ury charge on appeal
SLaLe pracLlce wlll ofLer reach a conLrary resulL where a parLy has falled Lo
properly ob[ecL Lo a [ury charge aL Lrlal and laLer aLLempLs Lo ralse Lhe lssue on
appeal
ueflnlng and ueLermlnlng Lhe Case 8efore @rlal
1 loley CarLer (handouL) 8ules 8 13 41 84 8rowse forms ln Lhe Supp

2 8ules 1820 Sklm 8ules 13 14 2224

3 8oldL v Sanders (handouL) 8ules 26 37 Sklm 8ules 2736

4 p 4244 8ules 16 36
!udge and !ury
3 p 4433 8ules 49 31

6 p3362 8ule 30
8evlew on Appeal
7 p 6266 8ule 32
Concluslveness of !udgmenLs
8 p 6667 8ule 60


ersona| Iur|sd|ct|on

9 p 7184
a ennoyer v neff
l Jhere Lhe ob[ecL of Lhe acLlon ls Lo deLermlne Lhe personal rlghs and
obllgaLlons of Lhe parLles servlce by publlcaLlon agalnsL nonresldenLs ls
lneffecLlve Lo confer [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe courL
ll ln personam an acLlon agalnsL a person seeklng Lo lmpose personal llablllLy
lll ln rem acLlon agalnsL properLy
b Pess v awloskl
l ln advance of a nonresldenL's use of lLs hlghways a sLaLe may requlre Lhe
nonresldenL Lo appolnL one of Lhe sLaLe's offlclals as hls agenL on whom process
may be served ln proceedlngs growlng ouL of such hlghway use
ll

10 p 8491
a lnLernaLlonal Shoe Co v JashlngLon
l lor a sLaLe Lo sub[ecL a nonresldenL defendanL Lo ln personam [urlsdlcLlon due
process requlres LhaL he have cerLaln mlnlmum conLacL wlLh lL such LhaL Lhe
malnLenance of Lhe sulL does noL offend LradlLlonal noLlons of falr play and
subsLanLlal [usLlce
1 @he conLacLs musL be such as Lo make lL reasonable ln Lhe conLexL of
our federal sysLem Lo requlre a defendanL corporaLlon Lo defend Lhe
sulL broughL Lhere
2 SaLlsfacLlon of due process depends on Lhe quallLy and naLure of Lhe
acLlvlLy ln relaLlon Lo Lhe falr and orderly admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe laws
3 ConLacLs were sysLemaLlc and conLlnuous
ll Ceneral [urlsdlcLlon a defendanL may have sufflclenL conLacL wlLh Lhe forum Lo
warranL asserLlng [urlsdlcLlon over lL for all maLLers
lll A defendanL may have sufflelenL conLacL wlLh Lhe forum Lo warranL asserLlng
[urlsdlcLlon over lL for maLLers relaLed Lo lLs acLlvlLy wlLh Lhe forum wlLhouL
havlng sufflclenL conLacL wlLh Lhe forum Lo warranL general [urlsdlcLlon
lv @hose who beneflL from Lhelr volunLary lnsLaLe conLacLs should llkewlse
undersLand Lhose beneflLs may carry wlLh Lhem Lhe burden of relaLed llLlgaLlon
v @he llmlLaLlons on p[ found ln long arm sLaLuLes are dlsLlncL from Lhe
consLlLuLlonal llmlL lmposed by Lhe mlnlmum conLacLs LesLs
vl lL ls clear LhaL a defendanL may have sufflclenL conLacLs wlLh a sLaLe Lo
summporL mlnlmum conLacLs [urlsdlcLlon even Lhough Lhey dld noL acL wlLhln a
sLaLe
1 lf a defendanL commlLs an acL ouLslde Lhe sLaLe LhaL Lhey know wlll
cause harmful effecLs wlLhln Lhe sLaLe Lhey wlll be sub[ecL Lo mln
conLacLs [urlsdlcLlon for clalms arlslng ouL of LhaL acL
vll Mlnlmum conLacLs analysls focuses on Lhe Llme when Lhe defendanL acLed noL
Lhe Llme of sulL
1 !urlsdlcLlon based on lnsLaLe servlce only requlres LhaL Lhe def be
presenL ln Lhe sLaLe aL Lhe Llme LhaL Lhe summons and complalnL are
served upon Lhem
2 ln such cases Lhe def need noL have any conLacL wlLh Lhe sLaLe aL Lhe
Llme of Lhe evenLs glvlng rlse Lo Lhe sulL
b Cray v Amerlcan 8adlaLor
l JheLher a nonresldenL acLlvlLy wlLhln a sLaLe ls adequaLe Lo sub[ecL lL Lo
[urlsdlcLlon of LhaL sLaLe depends upon Lhe facLs of each case and Lhe relevanL
lnqulry ls wheLher Lhe defendanL engaged ln some acL or conducL by whlch he
lnvocke Lhe beneflLs and proLecLlon of Lhe forum
ll @he prlmary purpose of Lhese sLaLuLes ls Lo provlde local forums for local
plalnLlffs on locally generaLed causes of acLlon
lll @he chlef barrler Lo undue exLenslon of longarm [urlsdlcLlon ls Lhe 14
Lh

amendmenL
lv

11 p 101104(Lhrough noLe 1)
a Panson v uenckla
l @he defendanL musL have purposely avalled lLself of Lhe prlvllege of conducLlng
acLlvlLles wlLhln Lhe forum sLaLe Lhus lnvoklng Lhe beneflLs and proLecLlons of
lLs laws
ll @hls lang emphaslzes LhaL Lhe def musL have made a dellberaLe cholce Lo relaLe
Lo Lhe sLaLe ln some meanlngful way before she can be made Lo bear Lhe
burden of defendlng Lhere
lll unllaLeral conLacLs of Lhe plalnLlff or oLhers wlll noL do
12 p 99100 9199 117118
a McCee v lnLernaLlonal Llfe lns
l Cnly 1 conLacL ls sufflclenL
ll 2 sLep approach
1 @he flrsL ls Lo deLermlne wheLher sufflclenL mlnlmum conLacLs exlsL so
as Lo make Lhe exerclse of personal [urlsdlcLlon permlsslble
2 @he second ls Lo balance Lhe lnLeresLs of Lhe plalnLlff defendanL and
Lhe forum Lo deLermlne lf exerclslng [urlsdlcLlon ls deslreable
b kuklo v Superlor courL
l Merely causlng an effecL wlLhln Lhe forum sLaLe wlLhouL purposeful avallmenL
wlll noL supporL [urlsdlclLlon
ll noL enough conLacLs as well as conslderaLlons of falrness

13 p 103117
a Jorldwlde volkswagen corp v Joodson
l @he sale of an auLo by a corporaLe defendanL ls noL sufflclenL purposeful
avallmenL of Lhe beneflLs and proLecLlon of Lhe laws of a sLaLe where Lhe auLo ls
forLulLously drlven so as Lo consLlLuLe Lhe requlslLe mlnlmum conLacLs wlLh LhaL
sLaLe for personal [urlsdlcLlon purposes
ll @he purposeful avallmenL of Lhe beneflLs and proLecLlons of Lhe forum sLaLe
lnvolves some acLlon deslgnaLed Lo beneflL Lhe acLor Lhrough an effecL ln Lhe
sLaLe asserLlng [urlsdlcLlon
lll no beneflL recelved from dolng buslness ln oklahama
lv

14 p 138148 (Lhrough noLe 2)

13 p 119129
a 8urger klng Corp v 8udzewlcz
l A parLy who esLabllshespurposeful mlnlmum conLacLs wlLh a sLaLe ls sub[ecL Lo
LhaL sLaLe's exerclse of personal [urlsdlcLlon over hlm
ll ClLes Mclee ln supporL of lLs holdlng where p[ was found based on a slngle
LransacLlon
lll 8k allowed def Lo en[oy Lhe advanLages of an assoc wlLh a florlda corp and
advanLage was proLecLed and governed by Lhe laws of florlda
lv Jhere Lhe defendanL has purposeposely dlrecLed acLlvlLles Lo Lhe forum sLaLe
[urlsdlcLlon ls presumpLlvely reasonable and Lhey wlll have Lo make a
compelllng case LhaL oLher conslderaLlons make Lhe exerclse of [urlsdlcLlon
unreasonable
v lL ls only when such dellberaLe conLacLs exlsL beLween Lhe def and Lhe forum
sLaLe LhaL oLher facLors wlll be welghed ln deLermlnlng wheLher Lhe exerclse of
[urlsdLlon would comporL wlLh falr play and subsLanLlal [usLlce

16 p 129136
a Asahl MeLal lndusLry Co v Superlor CourL
l Mlnlmum conLacLs sufflclenL Lo susLaln [urlsdlcLlon are noL saLlsfled slmply by
Lhe placemenL of a producL lnLo Lhe sLream of commerce coupled wlLh an
awareness LhaL lLs producL would reach Lhe forum sLaLe
ll 8urden of defense and Lhe sllghL lnLeresLs of Lhe sLaLe are unreasonable
lll @he beglnnlng of Lhe sLream of commerece(Lhe componenL maker) dld noL
lmporL Lhe producL lnLo Lhe forum sLaLe lLself lL sold Lo oLhers who dld

17 Calder v !ones (handouL) pp 130138 186193
a Calder v !ones
l A sLaLe can exerclse [urlsdlcLlon over a u based on Lhe effecLs LesL a sLaLe has
power Lo exerclse personal [urlsdlcLlon over a parLy who causes effecLs ln a
sLaLe by an acL done elsewhere wlLh respecL Lo any cause of acLlon arlslng from
Lhese effecLs
ll @he effecLs LesL says LhaL a sLaLe has power Lo exerclse personal [urlsdlcLlon
over a parLy who causes effecLs ln a sLaLe by an acL done elsewhere wlLh respecL
Lo any cause of acLlon arlslng from Lhese effecLs
lll This case will have larger implications with cases involving the internet.
lv EIIects test - must know that the tortuous action was purposeIully aimed
at a particular state
v The Calder eIIects test will allow personal jurisdiction over a party
whose.
1. Conduct was expressly aimed at the Iorum state,
2. Knowing that the harmIul eIIects would be Ielt primarily there
3. And that the deIendants would "reasonably anticipate being haled
into court there".
vl
b ebble 8each Co v Caddy
l Jhere a def has noL (1) purposefully avalled hlmself of Lhe prlvllege of
conducLlng acLlvlLles ln Lhe forum or (2) purposefully dlrecLed hls acLlvlLles
Loward Lhe forum Lhe mlnlmum conLacLs LesL for personal [urlsdlcLlon ls noL
saLlsfled
ll @he p[ lssues arlslng from Lhe lnLerneL have noL been consldered by Lhe
supreme courL
lll SomeLhlng more Lhan [usL a foreseeable effecL ls requlred Lo conclude LhaL
personal [urlsdlcLlon ls proper
lv AcLlve web slLes allow cusLomers Lo LransacL buslness Lhrough Lhe slLe
v lnLeracLlve webslLes all Lhe user Lo exchange lnfo buL noL conducL buslness
vl asslve operaLe more or less llke an adverLlsemenL
Iur|sd|ct|on 8ased on ower Cver roperty
18 p 138173
a Shaffer v PelLner
l !urlsdlcLlon cannoL be founded on properLy wlLhln a sLaLe unless Lhere are
sufflclenL conLacLs wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe LesL developed ln lnLernaLlonal
shoe

ersona| Iur|sd|ct|on kev|s|ted

19 p 173186

@e kequ|rement of keasonab|e Not|ce

20 p 199211 (Lhrough noLe 7)

edera| Sub[ect Matter Iur|sd|ct|on

lederal CuesLlons

21 p26667 293297 299301 309322 28 uSC 1331 uS ConsLlLuLlon ArLlcle 3 SecLlon 2

ulverslLy of ClLlzenshlp and AmounL ln ConLroversy

22 p 272293 28 uSC 1332 1339 and 1369


SupplemenLal !urlsdlcLlon

23 p 324333 28 uSC 1367

8emoval

24 p 330333 28 uSC 1441 1446 and 1447

Challenges Lo Sub[ecL MaLLer !urlsdlcLlon

23 p 362368 8ule 12(h) (@hls should Lake abouL 13 mlnuLes of class Llme so read on)
O