Civil Procedure Personal Jurisdiction Flowchart
Civil Procedure Personal Jurisdiction Flowchart
Bearry.
E.g., Shoe that activity • Noting that sales in NH of 10k to 15k
Continuous &
General Jurisdiction? Contacts must be substantial copies per month of a magazine “may not
or domiciled. Left up to the FSt. When would a FSt be so substantial as to support jurisdiction
want to assert PJ in this situation? Look at LAS. over a cause of action unrelated to those
activities.” Keeton.
Still must pass two-prong test of DPC. • Manufacturer sold products in Illinois
E.g., Helicopteros (no PJ), see list of other cases through independent dealer and sponsored
sales promotions in Illinois; dealer was
required to perform warranty work on all of
manufacturer’s products and to make
Probably PJ = sporadic activity or single act in FSt + No PJ = Sporadic or casual activity of D in FSt + records and facilities available for
cause of action arises out of that activity or act cause of action is not related to that activity manufacturer’s inspection; court held
manufacturer subject to GJ in Illinois.
Specific Jurisdiction? Usually enough but still E.g., Hanson
Sporadic, Casual
Braband.
Or Single Act
must be purposeful availment and claim must “arise • Hong Kong Corp. sold $35 mm of products
out of” the contact, no just be “related to” it. throughout U.S. and made no effort to limit
E.g., McGee, Helicopteros (no PJ b/c claim was distribution to particular states; courts found
GJ in NC. Hayes.
“related to” but do not “arise out of” the contact) • Finding GJ where D leased an office and
employed sales agents and clerical staff.
Bankhead Enterprises, Inc.
• Finding GJ over foreign airline which
maintained one and a half room office and
employed several people. Bryant.
• Finding no GJ over Wal-Mart in Texas
despite D’s operating 264 large stores.
Follette.
Valid PJ No PJ
Shoe – Retailer; Systematic and continuous acts Kulko – Domestic Relations; No purposeful availment
Summary: S. Ct. ruled contacts (salesmen based in the state) were systematic and Summary: Divorced father sent children to go live w/ the mother in Calif.
continuous and resulted in a large volume of interstate business for the D. Also, obligation Subsequently, M brought in personam suit against F for child support. S. Ct. ruled no PJ
to pay unemployment taxes arose from the contacts. b/c there was no purposeful act and no economic benefit.
Hess – Non-resident motorist statute; Implied consent Hanson – Trust; No purposeful availment