Law School Discussion

Question about reconciling the different decisions in two Civ Pro cases...

Re: Question about reconciling the different decisions in two Civ Pro cases...
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2005, 07:25:52 PM »
Hahaha! It's so entertaining to see 1Ls trying to find some kind of logic in court opinions!

lipper

  • ****
  • 349
    • View Profile
Re: Question about reconciling the different decisions in two Civ Pro cases...
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2005, 08:54:33 PM »
Here's a little secret: Personal Jurisdiction regarding a corporation either foreign or domestic WILL be a major exam question.

Another Secrest: Minimum contacts is the way to go.

Re: Question about reconciling the different decisions in two Civ Pro cases...
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2005, 09:02:38 PM »
Here's a little secret: Personal Jurisdiction regarding a corporation either foreign or domestic WILL be a major exam question.

Another Secrest: Minimum contacts is the way to go.

You also have to consider the "fairness" aspect.  Would it place an unreasonable burden on the defendant to litigate there?  Although "unfairness" claims will almost never outweigh a finding of minimum contacts, the analysis isn't complete without it.

Re: Question about reconciling the different decisions in two Civ Pro cases...
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2005, 09:15:21 PM »
WW VW was about defining "reasonable foreseeability" with regards to a distributor's expectations of being haled into a distant forum. This reasoanble foreseeability was defined through a description of requisite minimum contacts with mention of the stream of commerce made [specifically, the inference was made that a distributor cannot reasonably expect in personam jurisdiction to follow his product wherever it may end up - he is only stands eligible for jurisdiction in which he "purposefully avails" himself of the benefits of the laws of that particular state]. Asahi was a failed attempt to further define the stream of commerce and ultimately only established that jurisdiction could not be established on the basis of fair play and substantive due process considerations alone.