Term
| What is the general rule from International Shoe v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945)? |
|
Definition
| The courts of a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if she has such minimum contacts with the state that it would be fair to require her to return and defend a lawsuit in that state. |
|
|
Term
| According to International Shoe's minimum contact test, what does jurisdiction depend on? |
|
Definition
| The "quality and nature" of the contacts with the state. In some cases, even a single contact will do, but not contacts that are "casual" or "isolated." |
|
|
Term
| The Shoe Court suggested that a corporation that chooses to conduct activities within a state accepts a reciprocal duty to answer for its in-state activities in the local courts. What should a defendant understand about their activities within th |
|
Definition
| 1) they will have an impact there
2) they may lead to controversies and lawsuits there
3) the state has a right to enforce the orderly conduct of affairs within its borders by adjudicating disputes that arise from such in-state activities |
|
|
Term
| What is an important limitation on the minimum contact test does the Shoe court suggest about the court's power to exercise jurisdiction because its power derives from the defendant's voluntary relation to the state? |
|
Definition
| The power should be limited to cases "arising out" of that relation. |
|
|
Term
| If a companies headquarters are in St. Louis, and is held subject to personal jurisdiction in Washington for claims arising out of its sales in that state, can it be required to defend a claim in Washington arising from sales in Texas under a minimum cont |
|
Definition
| No, these are the facts of International Shoe . Sales in Texas are unrelated to Washington; the corporation would certainly not expect to be sued in Washington by a Texas shoe buyer, nor does the corporation take advantage of the benefits and protections of the laws of Washington by its activities in Texas. Micellaneous contacts are not minimum contacts. |
|
|
Term
| What does the Shoe court say about cases in which a defendant has no contact with the forum state? |
|
Definition
| It indicates that the state has no authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant, unless she consents to it. "Casual" or "isolated" contacts are insufficient to support jurisdiction. |
|
|
Term
| Can single acts ever support "specific in personam jurisdiction"? If so, when? |
|
Definition
| Yes, when the "quality and nature" support specific in personam jurisdiction arising out of that single act. |
|
|
