Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Civil Procedure 2
Transcript of Civil Procedure 2
-possession of property located within territorial boundaries of the state (COA not related to the land/ property, but property is attached to get jurisdiction)
-proper and timely attachment
-absent non resident of state has some property on the state (Personal Jurisdiction) International Shoe v. Washington:
-courts of a state can exercise jurisdiction if they have:
1. Minimum Contacts
-depends on quality and nature of contacts with the state
-if conduct activities in the state, activities w/in the state have an impact there
-takes advantage of benefits and protections of the laws of that state
-does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Decision: Corp was held subject to personal jurisdiction for claims arising out of its sho sales in that state. Minimum Contacts Test: Shoe Spectrum: no contacts with forum state casual/ isolated contacts substantial/ pervasive contacts (NO personal jurisdiction) general jurisdiction ***quality and nature of contacts will support specific in personam jurisdiction*** Traditional Basis: Pennoyer v Neff Expanding Bases of Personal Jurisdiction Implied Consent: Hess v Pawloski
-SC upheld statutes where a nonresident motorist using highways gives appointed local official to act as agent to receive service of process New Idea of Jurisdiction (NO personal jurisdiction) single act specific jurisdiction continuous but limited specific jurisdiction McGee v International Ins. Co.: (single acts)
-quality and nature of contacts will support specific in personam jurisdiction
-upheld jurisdiction over a claim arising from a single contract made in the state Burger King v. Rudzewicz: (continuous but limited activity) Two Part Test: 1. Were D's activities in the forum specific/ isolated/ or systematic / continuous? 2. Is the COA related/ unrelated to D's activities in the forum? Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice:
-state's interest in?
-Better alternative jurisdiction? 4 categories from Shoe:
1. D engaged in systematic/ continuous activities & COA arises from the activities
2. D engaged in systematic/ continuous activities & COA does NOT arise from those activities
3. D has isolated contacts & COA arises from such contacts
4. No systematic & continuous contacts and COA does NOT arise from that business -gives the court the power to impose personal liability on the defendant in favor of the plaintiff Specific:
-COA arise out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state
-Defendant must purposefully establish a sufficient level of contacts w/ the forum state
-must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice General:
-defendant's contacts w/ forum state are continuous and systematic Domicile:
-intent of residency and to remain permanently somewhere
-can only have one Resident:
-ability to have residence in places
-can have multiple residencies