Suit

Does the defendant live in the forum state?

r

Traditional view set out in Pennoyer v. Neff

Yes

In Personam Jurisdiction

No

Was the person served in the forum state?

r

Traditional view set out in Pennoyer v. Neff

Yes

In Personam Jurisdiction

No

Did the defendant consent?

r

Traditional view set out in Pennoyer v. Neff

Yes

In Personam Jurisdiction

No

Is the defendant's in-state property attached to the suit?

r

"Attach" refers to the legal procedure of noting that the property is in the court's hands. New issue brought up in Pennoyer v Neff. Since the plaintiff did not attach the property at the time of filing, the court did not grant jurisdiction.

Yes

Is the defendant's in-state property directly related to the suit?

r

If the dispute is about the actual ownership of the property, that is in rem. If the dispute is simply against the person who owns the property, that's quasi in rem.

Yes

In Rem Jurisdiction

No

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

No

No Jurisdiction

No (2)

r

Harris v. BalkX owed Y money. Y owed Z money. When X entered Z's state, Z served X to collect the money Y owed him. The court allowed this action to occur under quasi in rem jurisdiction.

Is the defendant's mobile property in the state?

r

Harris v. Balk

No

No Jurisdiction

Yes

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

r

Desicion reached in: Harris v Balk

No (2)

r

Hess v. Powloski

Does the suit involve a car accident that happened in the forum state?

r

Hess v. PawloskiX, a PA resident, ran into Y, a MA resident, in MA.The state of Massachusets set up its law so that anyone driving in the state of MA gave implied consent for jurisdiction in MA. The court held up the MA law.

No

No Jurisdiction

Yes

In Personam Jurisdiction through an appointed agent

r

Decision reached in: Hess v Pawloski

No (2)

Did the suit arise out of contacts with the forum state?

r

International Shoe v Washington StateInternational Shoe had salespeople in WA, but did not pay state unemployment taxes. They were not under jurisdiction in WA according to law of the time, because they were headquartered in St. Louis and did not own property in WA. As soon as the shoes were purchased, they were shipped from St. Louis on receipt of goods. International Shoe set up the precedent, "Minimum Contacts with the forum state that satisfy notions of fair play and substantial justice are sufficient for personal jurisdiction." International Shoe also compared specific jurisdiction with general jurisdiction and laid out different requirements for each.

Yes

Specific Jurisdiction Needed

r

Here is where we get into the minimum contact rule set out in International Shoe.

Did lawyers ask for specific jurisdiction?

r

Whoops! From Helicopteros

Yes

Were contacts with the forum state targetted to the forum state?

r

Yes for Calder v. Jones; No for WW Volkswagon.

Yes

Specific Jurisdiction granted

Yes (2)

Was there intent to do business/interact within the forum state?

r

This arose out of ALS internet case.

No

No Jurisdiction

Yes

Specific Jurisdiction granted

No

No Jurisdiction

Not Sure

Are the contacts enough to make it fair, balancing the five factors?

r

This is what Asahi did to get around the minimum contacts rule.

Yes

Specific Jurisdiction Granted

No

No Jurisdiction

No

No

General Jurisdiction Needed

r

Meaning, that there are so many contacts that the court has jurisdiction over all the actions done by the business.

Where the minimum contacts continous, substantial, and systematic?

r

Again, set out by International Shoe.

Yes

General Jurisdiction granted

No

No Jurisdiction