Here is a sample outline everyone is asking for. If you like what you see below, please contact me at email@example.com
for other subjects.
Each outline has Detailed Barbri Lecture Notes and Short Must Know For Exam Outline.
Barbri Lecture Notes
(1) PERSONAL JURISDICTION
(a) Personal Jurisdiction: in what states P may sue D?
ii) Two part test:
(1) Satisfy Statute: argue statute both ways
(2) Satisfy the Constitution: International Shoe
(a) Test: Does D have such minimum contacts w/ the forum so that PJ does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?
1. Contact: purposeful availment w/ state and foreseeablity D would be sued in forum.
i. Shipping goods into state
ii. Using roads in the state
2. Fairness: fair play and substantial justice
a. Relatedness b/n the contact and the claim. Does Pís claim arise from Dís contact w/ forum state? Especially imp if D has small amt of contact w/ the forum.
i. Relatedness is not needed if forum has gen jur over D, e.g. domicile, so D can be sued for a claim that arose anywhere in the world.
b. Convenience: D may complain that the forum makes it tough for her to litigate b/c its far from her home. Forum is OK unless it puts D at a severe disadvantage in the litigation, which is very tough to show.
c. State's interest, e.g., provide forum for its citizens.
(b) SUMMARY OF CONSTITUTIONAL TEST: mnemonic: My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Childrens Stories.
Minimum contacts Fair play & substantial justice
purposeful avail. relatedness of contact and claim
(i) Constitutional analysis of the Doofus case (Doofus makes valves in Ohio and sells them to a company in NY, which puts them in its heaters and sells them nationwide; a Doofus valve explodes in State X):
1. Contacts. Is there a contact b/n Doofus and State X? YES, the Doofus valve blew up in State X.
2. Was the contact the result of purposeful availment by Doofus of State X? Very tough question. Argue both ways and come to a reasonable conclusion.
a. Maybe no: b/c a third party (the NY heater manufacturer) sent the valves to State X.
b. Maybe yes: b/c Doofus makes money from the sales by the NY company to State X. So maybe Doofus does avail of the market of State X.
3. Is it foreseeable that Doofus could get sued there? Maybe if Doofus knows the valves get to State X and that valves can explode and hurt people.
4. Fairness. Is there relatedness? Yes! The claim arises directly from the contact b/n Doofus and forum.
5. Convenience and State's interest.
(a) In rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction (NEVER been tested)
ii) Jurisdictional base is not D's person, but her property. The statutory basis is an attachment statute, e.g., allowing attachment of property owned by a nonresident. On the constitutional test, Shaffer v. Heitner says that in all cases, even in rem and quasi in rem, D=s contact w/ the forum must satisfy the International Shoe test. Despite this, validity might depend on whether dispute is related to the property attached. If so (that's