1. Court's power over persons and property

1. underlying jurisdictional concerns

1. distant forum
2. notice (must know about the suit)
3. due process clause of the 14^th Amendment - no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

1. jurisdiction over persons (in personam) and property (in rem)

1. Pennoyer v. Neff

1. each state is a separate entity and is sovereign within its boundaries
2. a defendant can be physically served whenever the D is physically inside the state (service within the state creates jurisdiction, no matter how brief the stay in the state was)
3. if there is property within a state, there can be jurisdiction over it, just as there is whenever a person is physically inside the state (example of quasi in rem - see below)
4. state has little power if any, over persons located outside the state - even if person comes into state, causes harm, and then leaves the state
5. state may require the non-resident of the state to appoint an agent which may be served in case of litigation
6. suggests that states could require non-citizens to consent to suit as a condition for conducting activities in the state

1. a state may appoint an agent to which service shall be made on behalf of all those passing through the state (Hess v. Pawloski)
2. International Shoe Co. v. Washington

1. established foundations of modern jurisdictional concepts
2. minimum contacts with a state are sufficient to establish jurisdiction

1. General Jurisdiction

1. when claim has arisen in another place, and is unrelated to the contacts with the forum
2. example: Perkins v. Benguet claim arose in the Philippines, but P was able to gain jurisdiction because D maintained an office in Ohio http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case

1. Specific Jurisdiction

1. when a claim arises out of or is related to the contacts [with state]
2. example: McGee v. International Life: claim arose because of single contact in which the insurance company solicited business in CA

1. Long Arm Statutes - how far a state may reach out in order to gain jurisdiction

1. some use due process test. This means the state can reach every D it can constitutionally possible

a. court can base jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the constitution

2. other states use laundry list long arm statutes

• these specify which cases exactly come under their jurisdiction
• reach can depends on traditions and values of the people of the state

1. in Gray v. American Radiator the court held any contact with the state was enough to satisfy minimum contact, even if that contact was through a third party

• needs to be reasonably foreseeable that the product would enter into the state and cause harm
• the long arm in this case said jurisdiction was granted if there was a commission of a tortious act within the State

1. these long arm laundry list statutes are amended as different cases arise

• can do this to cover new situations
• widen the long arm or narrow it

1. intermediate long arm - between due process test and laundry list

1. Hall v. Helicopteros

1. Expansions of the Minimum Contracts Doctrine

1. commercial defendants

1. purposeful availing

• Hanson v. Denckla - it is essential that there is some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state

1. reasonable anticipation

• World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson - can assert jurisdiction over a corporation if it delivers its products in to the stream of commerce with the expectation they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.
• World Wide Volkswagen: minimum contacts gives a degree of predictability to the legal system; also a D could possibly foresee that the contacts with the state are such he could reasonably foresee being haled into court there.

1. convenience

1. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - When there are minimum contacts with a state, that state can have jurisdiction even if the minimum contacts did not mean physical presence in that state. Minimum contacts can give D fair warning that a particular activity may subject them to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.
2. Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court - there are unique burdens upon one who must defend himself in a foreign legal system. There is greater concern with foreign defendants. Court held it was unreasonable to exercise jurisdiction over a cross complaint for indemnity by a Japanese component manufacturer.

G. Non-commercial Defendants

1. Kulko v. Superior Court - must have availed himself of benefits and protections of CA law. Agreeing to send children to CA in the interest of the family Kulko can hardly be said to have purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of CA's laws.

1. quasi in rem jurisdiction - 2 types

1. disputes related to property under the court's control. This continues to provide a constitutional basis for exercise of jurisdiction
2. personal disputes where the court lacked jurisdiction over the D, but had jurisdiction over property belonging to D. The property could be seized by P and used to satisfy the claim. The property can be used to establish jurisdiction.

• in Harris v. Balk court upheld jurisdiction over a debt owed to D by a temporary visitor to the state.

1. In Rem jurisdiction: power over property

1. classic in rem case is one involving title to land in the forum
2. property can also take the form of debt Harris v. Balk. Obligation to pay a debt goes wherever the debtor goes. overruled by Shaffer
3. Shaffer v. Heitner - when property is completely unrelated to the plaintiff's cause of action, its presence alone will not suffice to support jurisdiction. Overrules Harris. Minimum contacts should apply to jurisdiction over property.

1. Tag jurisdiction: does fairness control or tradition control?

1. Burnham v. Superior Court - is there jurisdiction just because the state could say "we gotcha?" Appellant was served during a brief visit to CA.

• in Burnham doubt was expressed about the continuing validity of the reasoning in Shaffer. Said approach to due process issue is different

updated 9/18/98