Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Chapter 1: The goal of modern procedure: to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action &

proceeding. throughout the course consider whether this goal is achieved. Although civil procedure focuses on litigation process, most disputes are not settled though litigation. A civil case, unlike criminal, which intends to punish violators, provides compensation for disputes b/n private parties. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases, plaintiff must proved that the defendant is liable by the preponderance of the evidence. Civil procedure provides the vehicle for attempting to vindicate rights created by substantive law. Changes in procedure can alter substantive rights. Federalism: While federal power is limited to those areas enumerated in the Constitution, theSupremacy Clause provides that the federal laws are superior to the state laws so long as an issue is w/in the purview of federal govt. Constitution limits the power of federal courts to review cases. Plaintiff can file in federal court indiversity of citizenship cases ( and D are citizens of different states and the amount involved exceeds $75,000) and federal question cases (in which s claim arises under a federal law). These are called federal subject matter jurisdictions. has the choice of filing in federal or state court. Once the case is filed in one systemstate or federal its subject to appellate review only in that state. The one exception to this is that the US Supreme Court can review the decision of the highest court of the state, but only as to matters of federal law (which include questions of constitutional right). Tripartite Model of Courts: Trial courts: this is where initiates civil litigation. Trial courts have original jurisdictions, which is the power to hear the case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction. Trial court in federal judicial system is the federal district court. Intermediate appellate courts: federal equivalent is US Court of Appeals, which consist of 13 circuits, 11 of which are grouped by geography and the 13th is for the Federal Circuit, whose jurisdiction is determined not by geography but by subject matter. Supreme Court: court of last resort. In NY it is Court of Appeals. US Supreme Court has 9 justices. Appellate courts do not hear cases of facts but of law. Through stare decisis or precedent, the decisions of appellate courts are binding on lower courts. Adversary System: the idea that the clash of self-interested parties will enhance the possibility of finding the truth and reaching a just result. No appellate court can declare a statute unconstitutional until it has been brought to lower court for review. No plaintiff can sue unless he has standing, which means that he must have suffered some injury. Under adversarial system, judges are passive; they react rather than act on the case. Inquisitorial system based on Roman law is diametrically opposed to adversarial, and judges can and do conduct independent investigation. Alternatives to Litigation: 1) Negotiation is the most widely used alternative method of resolution (ADR). 2) Mediation is essentially negotiation through the auspices of a third party who facilitate settlement. The two options help s avoid the zero-sum nature of litigation. 3) Arbitration: resolution of the dispute by a third party other than court.One criticism of arbitration is that it might favor repeat players. General topic of Civ. Pro.: 1) Selecting a Forum: the 1st procedural question is where to file. The court must have personal jurisdiction (jurisdiction over parties to a lawsuit) over the defendants to sue. 2) Learning about the opponents case: another block is the rules governing how litigants learn about each others contentions. The 1st tool is pleadings, documents in which each side alleges facts underlying their claim and defenses. Once the complaint is filed, the opposing side may file motion to dismiss or simply answer. After pleadings, parties embark on discovery phase of the case, in which they can require each other to present information. 3) Adjudication w/ or w/o a Jury: After the trial, jurys verdict can be overridden. 4) Preclusion, Joinder, and Supplemental Jurisdiction: two sets of rules foster the inclusive st packaging of all related claims and parties into a single case. The 1 is the Preclusion doctrine, which prohibits parties from relitigating some issues already decided, and, in some cases, bar a from raising issues that he could have raised in the earlier case. Joinder is a set of rules that defines the scope of litigation in terms of parties and claims. They delineate the s ability to join co- and multiple Ds in a single proceeding. 5) Appeal: can be obtained after the courts judgment. Chapter 2: PERSONAL JURISDICTION. One must first determine which court has jurisdiction, which court has the authority to decide the case. There are two main types of jurisdiction: subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ) and personal jurisdiction (PJ). The former deals withwhether the court has authority to decide a particular type of case. Ex: S in federal courts is limited to those areas specified in MJ the Constitution and in federal statutes. The latter concerns the circumstance under which a court has authority to make binding decisions on particular parties. By invoking the authority of the court, the party consents to the binding order of a court. Types of judgments: injunctive relief orders the D to do or refrain from doing something; financial compensation for damages. Unlike for injunctive relief, the person who does not pay compensation cannot be held I contempt of the court. Thus, the burden to enforce the judgment falls on the one who secures the judgment (often by attaching pr owned by -ty the D). Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the Constitution provides that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. This ensures that one state enforces he t judgment of another state. One of few exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause is where the court that rendered the decision lacked personal jurisdiction over the D.

Comment [T1]: But if you sue in California, then why not file there since the Californian sheriff could serve Neff? Comment [T2]: Is personal jurisdiction the same as in presonam? Yes, they mean the same thing. Territorial jurisdiction include in rem and personal. Territorial jurisdiction can also mean basis. Pennoyer has jurisdiction in rem/basis b/c the pr ty is in the state. If the case in personam is won, the person has righ t to any property to satisfy the judgment unlike in the in rem case, which limit damages or compensation to the value of the property in state.

CASE BRIEF: Pennoyer v. Neff Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction Section B: Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction Privileges 1. Fountainheadthe first originating case. NAME: Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714, 24 L. Ed.565, 5 Otto 7

Page: 22


FACTS: y In 1865, Mitchell sued Marcus Neff in Oregon state court, alleging that Neff owed him $253.14 for legal services. Mitchell submitted an affidavit asserting that Neff owned land in Oregon and lived in California, where he could not be found. Notice to D was published in Pacific Christian Advocate, a weekly church newspaper. Mitchell won the case by default since Neff did not answer or appear at court. Six months later, Mitchell secured a writ of execution of the default judgment against Oregon real estate owned by Neff and bought the land at the auction for the amount of the judgment. Three days later, Mitchell transferred title to Pennoyer. PROCEDURE: In 1874, Neff sued Pennoyer in federal court seeking eviction and won on the ground that the judgment in Mitchell v. Neff was invalid since the affidavit concerning Neffs whereabouts did not adequately describe the step Mitchell had taken to locate Neff and that the affidavit attesting to the publication of notice was also inadequate. Pennoyer appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. (The trial court based its decision on a perceived problem w/ Mitchells affidavit under Oregon law). ISSUE: Did Oregon state court have jurisdiction (quasi-in-rem jurisdiction) over Neffs property in Oregon? HOLDING: No, Oregon state court did not have jurisdiction over Neffs property since the court didnt attach Neffs pr-ty at the outset of the case, but only after the default judgment against Neff has been entered. (The courts holding concern then only quasi-in-rem jurisdiction and requires that the jurisdictional predicate in such a case be seized by the court at the outset of the litigation. W/o such seizure theres no pr-ty over which court has jurisdiction/power.) Failure to attach the pr-ty at the outset of the case violates the full faith and credit clause of the constitution since its judgment is void and thus not re cognizable by other states, and likewise violates the due process clause since the court has no jurisdiction REASONING: y The court held that the current case is in rem & not in personam case because the latter would require serving of process [notice] to the D inside the forum state, which is not possible. As a quasi-in-rem case, the court found that the lower court did not have personal jurisdiction over the property of Neff because the pr-ty was not attached at the outset of litigation but only after the rendering of judgment. Since the court did not have jurisdiction over Neffs pr-ty, the judgment is void; thus, making full faith and credit clause inapplicable and violating the due process as provided for by 14th Amendment. The case provides other bases for personal jurisdiction: every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property w/in its territory and that no state can exercise direct jurisdiction & authority over persons or pr-ty w/o its territory. DISPOSITION: NUGGETS: Judgment affirmed. CLASS NOTES With regard to proceedings in rem, the constructive service [of notice in the form of publication] to nonresident is appropriate [since seizure of the property is a notice in itself]. However, where the suit is in personam, constructive service upon nonresident is ineffectualpublication notice does not suffice in the in personam case. The presence of a proper personal jurisdiction is necessary for the due process. Limitation to full faith & credit clause is that the court rendering the judgment has jurisdiction over partiesand subject-matter. Pennoyer comments the following on in personam cases: 1) a defendant can be subject to in personam jurisdiction if he appears in court, which is known as consentwaiving of constitutional right of being sued. 2) Pennoyer recognized that state can exercise in personam jurisdiction over a resident thereof. 3) A state has in personam jurisdiction over a defendant found within the state. This is referred to as presence as the basis of jurisdiction. This requires that the D be served with process while present in the forum state. This is typical in personam jurisdiction. 4) the court later state that another basis for in personam jurisdiction can be when a state may require a nonresident entering into partnership or assoc -

iation w/in its limits to appoint an agent or representative in the state to receive service of process. This may be seen as the defendant being present in the state through an agent. This is dictum because the court does not The court also made clear that the Constitution requires not only jurisdictional predicate, but also that the D be given notice and opportunity to defend himselfprocess. Personal service, delivering of summons in person to the D in the forum state, is absolute requirement for in personam cases. But if in rem case, publication notice or constructive notice will suffice. [Refer to hypos on pg 60 for practice.] For jurisdiction to exist in quasi-in-rem cases, 2 requirements must be satisfied: jurisdictional predicate of attaching pr-ty at the outset of the case and publication notice. In an in personam case, because the court exercise jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, it can enter a judg ment that creates a personal obligation to pay money or perform some act. A court can enforce in personam judgment either by attaching and selling any of the Ds pr-ty or by ordering D to perform some act. In an in rem case, the courts st jurisdiction extends only to the particular property attached (not the person). The 1 category of in rem cases involves concerns of ownership of attached pr-ty. A true in rem case is the one which decides ownership as to the whole world: after the condemnation, the govt owns the land and no one else in the world. Quasi in rem type 1 case adjudicates ownership as b/n litigants. These cases are different from quasi in rem type 2 jurisdiction in that thelawsuit has nothing to do with pr-ty. Instead, the presence of the pr-ty is simply the basis upon which the court relies to assert jurisdiction in the case. (This is Pennoyer case; in Mitchell v. Neff, if Mitchell had used quasi-in-rem 2 jurisdiction by attaching Neffs pr-ty at the outset of the case, the default judgment would have been valid, even if Neff was not served in Oregon). In rem jurisdiction is available only if the pr-ty attached at the beginning of the case. In an in rem proceeding, the substitute service by publication plus timely attachment of the pr-ty provides sufficient notice of the proceeding to the D. (such notice is sufficient b/c attachment of the pr-ty means that court has power over it and thus the D would find out). Court of one state cannot serve the service of process to the D in another state.

In personam jurisdiction allows for judgment that creates a personal obligation to pay money in any state because the court exercises jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and wherever he is that is where the court has jurisdiction. In an in rem, the courts jurisdiction extends only to a particular pr-ty attached. Types of in rem: true in rem cases are ones which decide ownership as to the whole world. Ex: govt owns the land and no one else in the world once the pr-ty is attached and the court has jurisdiction over it. QIR 1: adjudicate ownership as between the litigants. In true in rem and QIR1, the court takes jurisdiction over the pr-ty so as to adjudicate ownership of that pr-ty. (Similarity b/n the two). QIR2: lawsuit has nothing to do with the pr-ty. Instead, the presence of the pr-ty is simply the basis upon which the court relies to assert jurisdiction in the case. Due Process imposes two requirements: Notice and personal jurisdiction. In in rem cases the court requires the attachment of pr-ty at the beginning of the case because it needs to ensure that it has power over the pr-ty that will not be transferred or destroyed during litigation. For example, if not attached at the outset of the case, the owner might sell it before a judgment is rendered, in which case court would lose its jurisdiction. In in personam jurisdiction, the seizure of property usually takes place after the entry of judgment and after the D has refused to pay because the purpose of pr in this case -ty is to ensure that the D pays. If she pays willingly, then there is no need to seize, that is why it can be done at the end. While in QIR1 and true in rem cases the court litigates the issue as to the ownership of the pr in QIR2 cases the -ty, question is not over who owns the pr-ty because the D does; but it is only a judicial predicate to establish jurisdiction. In QIR2 case, the cannot use the judgment under full faith and credit in another state to recover the unrecovered portion of compensation if property in the forum did not sell high enough to cover the judgment. It can be done only in personam

CASE BRIEF: Hess v. Pawloski Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction Section B: Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction Privileges 2. Interim Developments NAME: Hess v. Pawloski 274 U.S. 352, 47 S. Ct. 632, 71L. Ed.1091

Page: 34


FACTS: y , resident of Penn., drove a motor vehicle negligently and wantonly on a public highway in MA and injured the D by reason thereof. No personal service was made to him and no pr-ty belonging attached. The service of process was made in compliance with General Law of MA, which state, in short, that a nonresident operating vehicle on a highway in MA consents to the service of process via an agent. PROCEDURE: The D brought the case to trial court to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the wantonly and negligently driving a motor vehicle on a public highway in MA. Following the judgment for D, appealed for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction. D filed motion to dismiss on the grounds that service of process, if sustained, would deprive him of his pr-ty w/o due process in violation of 14 Ame. ISSUE: Does the Massachusetts statute in question violate the due process of the 14th Amendment? HOLDING: No, the statute in question does not violate the due process clause of 14th Amendment. REASONING: y Pennoyer: the process of a court of one state cannot run into another and summon a party there domiciled to respond to proceedings against him. It does not give jurisdiction to the court. There must be actual service w/in the state of service to him or an agent. The issues is whether the stature violates the due process is primary because if it does not, then the service through an agent as provided by the MA statute would give jurisdiction over the . W/ regard to a statute, a state cannot prevent a citizen of another state from entering for any purposePrivileges & Immunities Clause. Kane v. NJ, the states power to regulate use of its highway extends to their use of by nonresident as well as resident. And in advance of operation of a motor vehicle on its highway by a nonresident, it may require him to appoint one of its officials as his agent for service of process. Thus, P&I & due process arent violated. (the statute puts other state citizens on the same level as MA citizens to avoid case on discrimination -the statue provides consent by driving thru ). DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.

CLASS NOTES If the court followed Pennoyer, the judgment would be otherwise. However, they reach opposite decision because law cares about consequences. So, the court passes such judgment supporting this policy goal. (If you compare Hess v. Pawloski to Flexner v. Farson, you will see that there is contradiction because the court does not follow its precedent in the latter case. However, the court clarifies this by saying that states cannot forbid people to come into a state, like in Hess v. Pawloski, and that it requires for that reason to consent to the service through agent. For corporation/partnership in Flexner v. Farson, on the other hand, the court says that it can forbid corporation to business in the state, unlike to peopl , e if the corporation does not accept to appoint an agent. This is the distinction). In the 18th and 19th centuries, a corporation could be sued in personam only in the state of incorporation. As multistate corporations emerged, states began to require corporation to consent to certain conditions, including appointing of an agent for service of process. Noncompliance meant that state could refuse business in that state. Under Privileges & Immunities Clause, state could not exclude citizens of another state. W regard to corporations, the court ruled that P&I Clause doesnt / apply to corporations. By 20th century, the court began to recognize that even if P&I Clause did not prohibit states from excluding out-of-state corporations, the Commerce Clause prohibited states from excluding corporation engaged solely in s interstate commerce. As corporations exploited this option, the Supreme Court shifted focus away from consent to condi tions by upholding jurisdiction on the ground that regardless of consent, the corporation was present in that state. Increased mobility of people also led to the pressure on jurisdictional doctrine b/c people were not ease to locate for the purposes of service of process. This problem was resolved to an extent by expanding quasi-in-rem to include attachment of an intangible res such as debt. As a result, the D was subject to QIR2 jurisdiction wherever his debtors were found. The facts of the case state that D appeared specially. A special appearance is a procedure that allows D to come forward in a case to contest jurisdiction w/o thereby consenting to jurisdiction.

CASE BRIEF: Flexner v. Farson Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction Section B: Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction Privileges 2. Interim Developments. NAME: Flexner v. Farson United States Supreme Court, 248 U.S. 289

Page: 00


FACTS: y Flexner and Farson, neither the resident of Kentucky, contracted in a partnership. Washington Flexner was their in-state agent. The contracted was breached. The state statute provides that service of process may be made upon the agent of the business in the state where business is done. PROCEDURE: The , Flexner, obtained a judgment for money in Kentucky Court against the D, who defaulted & claims that the Flexner was not their agent at the time of process. The sued upon in IL to enforce judgment against the D, claiming the contract had the implied consent that the partnership would be subject to service in the state thru agent. D argued that the court had no jurisdiction. The state court held the judgment void. ISSUE: Was the service of process in the state of Kentucky valid (thus validating the judgment)? HOLDING: No, the service of process was invalid. REASONING: y The state statute assumes implied consent to the service of process in the state thru agent when a corporation conducts business there. The court finds that such implied consent to service of process is a mere fiction, founded on the doctrine that states could exclude corporations, and therefore establish this obligation as a condition for entrance. The court states that a state has no power to exclude Ds. DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.

CASE BRIEF: Pennington v. Fourth National Bank Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction Section B: Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction Privileges 2. Interim Developments. NAME: Pennington v. Fourth National Bank United States Supreme Court, 243 U.S. 269

Page: 00


FACTS: y Mrs. Pennington, seeking an alimony and to ensure payment, joined as a D the 4th Natl Bank, in which her husband had a deposit account. At the outset of the suit, the court entered preliminary order enjoin ing the bank from paying out any deposits and later perpetually enjoined from making payment to the husband. The husband presented the bank w/ the check for the full amount of deposit, but the bank refused to pay. Claiming that he was a nonresident of Ohia, not personally served w/ process w/in the state, nor voluntarily appeared in court, sued the bank for the amount. He claims that the state court violated due process of law of the 14th Amendment. PROCEDURE: The divorce case was filed in state court of Ohio, which, according to the D, violated the due process of law. The D then sued the bank for money in another court of Ohio. The judgment was for the D, bank. took the case by writ of error to the courts of appeal of Hamilton county, and then to the supreme court of Ohio. Both affirmed the judgment of Ohio court. He appealed to the US Supreme Court. ISSUE: Did the state court of Ohio violate the due process of law (have jurisdiction over the D)? HOLDING: No, the state court did not violate the due process of law because it had jurisdiction quasi in rem REASONING: y 14th Amendment did not, in guarantying the due process of law, abridge states jurisdiction over pr-ty w/in its borders, regardless of residence or presence of an owner. The jurisdiction extends to tangibles and intangibles alike. By Pennoyer, a substituted service on a nonresident by publication provides no basis (jurisdiction in personam). The Court states, however, that this is quasi in rem case, and as such, seizure of the pr-ty at the outset of the case, the presence of res w/in its border, and the opportunity of the owner to be heard thru substituted service establishes quasi in rem jurisdiction. It is in rem case b/c indebtedness due from a resident to a nonresident is property w/in the state. Finally, the court dismisses contention for the violation of due process (In ordinary garnishment proceedings the obligation enforced is a debt existing at the commencement of the action, whereas the obligation to pay alimony arises only as a result of the suitthis is the contention) by saying that state proceeding against the pr-ty of an absent defendant is the same whether the obligation sought is an admitted indebtedness or a contested claim. It has not effect. DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.

Comment [T3]: you need these three underlined elements for the jurisdiction quasi- in-rem. Comment [T4]: It refers to the indebtedness of the resident (bank) to nonresident.

CASE BRIEF: Intl Shoe Co. v. Washington Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction Section B: Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction privileges 3. The Modern Era. NAME: Intl Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95

Page: 22


FACTS: y A state statute allows the state to collect unemployment contributions from corporations to cover the cost of unemployment program. Intl Shoe Co. has no office in Washington and makes no contract for sale or purchase of merchandise there; it employs salesmen who are paid commissions and who are not allowed to enter into contract or sell products; they only exhibit the product and only one shoe; sales men transmit orders to office in St/ Louis for acceptance or rejection and ship f.o.b. (paid by purchaser) from point outside Washington. PROCEDURE: Appellant, Intl Shoe Co., appeared specially before the office of unemployment toclaim that the service of process was not proper; the service of notice was personally served upon a sales solicitor employed by the appellant in Washington and a copy sent in mail to appellants address. The motion was heard by the appeal tribunal, which denied the motion and ruled that appellee could recover unpaid contributions. Both the Superior Court and Supreme Court affirmed. ISSUE: Did a Delaware corporation by its activities render itself amenable to the proceedings in the courts of that state (i.e. give jurisdiction) to recover unpaid contributions to the state unemployment fund, within the limits of the due process clause? HOLDING: Yes, by its activities, the corporation subjected itself to in personam jurisdiction in the state. REASONING: y The Supremem Court of Washington held that the regular and systematic solicitationof orders in the state by appellants salesmen was sufficient to constitute doing business in the state so as to make it amenable to suit in its courts. y Rule: 1) solicitation w/in a state by the agents of a foreign corporation plus some additional activities there are sufficient to render the corporation amenable to suit brought in the court of the state to enforce obligations arising out of its activities there. (Such additional activities included displaying of shoes in permanent display rooms etc.) 2) Due process requires only that to subject the D to judgment in personam, if he is not present in the forum state, he has certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice. (Historically, in personam required presence and consent, which is substituted by minimum contacts). y The court explained minimum contact to consist of 1) the level of activity of the D in the forum & 2) whether the claim asserted against the D is related to the Ds activities in the forum. The level of activity ranges from casual to continuous and systematic. The court found the appellant to have been continuous and systematic. (The court mentions that corporations can be held amenable to suit in the state if the level of activity is not continuous but its operation w/in the state (2). This calculation is not mechanical or quantitative). Given continuous level of activity and that the activity of corporation afforded it the protection of the under the state law, the court found it to be reasonable that the state can sue the corporation for delinquent contributions. (if neither is present, then no minimum contacts). DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed. DISSENT: Justice Black dissented, although agreeing w/ the judgment, based on the grounds that the courts new interpretation complicating the issue of in personam jurisdiction and concern that this might limit the states ability to exercise in personam jurisdiction. CLASS NOTES In dealing with jurisdiction over corporations, the court began moving away from the Pennoyer-based terms of presence and consent and focusing instead on whether the corporation was doing business in the state. This is the new standard for in personam jurisdiction. International Shoe involved a corporate D. Later cases made clear that Intl Shoe test applied to individual Ds as well. Remember that minimum contact test is an alternative for when the D is not present in the state; if present,Pennoyers presence rule applies.

Other Modern Developments of Personal Jurisdiction: y McGee v. Intl Life Ins. Co.: a Californian citizen bought insurance from Arizona insurance company, which was later taken over by Texas company. The new insurance company sent the reinsurance certificate to the insured, who sent his premium from California. The insured died in California and an issue arose concerning the policy. The insurance company declared policy void and refused to pay because the insured had committed suicide. The beneficiaries sued the insurance company in California. The Supreme Court found that there was juris diction b/c 1) the suit was based on a contract that had substantial connection with the forum 2) California has interest in providing effective means of redress to its citizens and 3) the balance of inconveniences favored allowing the to sue on California since it would be easier for a corporation to come litigate than a widow go to Texas, which is expensive for her. y Hanson v. Denckla: the issue arose out of family inheritance issue. Dora created a trust in Delaware bank while she was domiciled in Pennsylvania and later moved to Florida. Following her demise, family members contested the inheritance. Mrs. Donners will as probate in Florida and under FL law, the Delaware bank was a necessary party to the case. The issue arose whether FL has personal jurisdiction over Delaware bank. The Supreme Court held that there was no jurisdiction because at the time of creation of the trust, there was no connection with FL. The Supreme Court injected a new term into Intl Shoe: purposeful availment. To have relevant contact under the minimum contact test, the D must have purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conduction activities w/in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.

CASE BRIEF: Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction Section B: Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction privileges 4. Minimum Contacts NAME: Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. Supreme Court of Illinois

Page: 22


FACTS: y A state statute allows the state to collect unemployment contributions from corporations to cover the PROCEDURE: Appellant, Intl Shoe Co., appeared specially before the office of unemployment to claim that the ISSUE: Did a Delaware corporation by its activities render itself amenable to the proceedings in the courts of HOLDING: Yes, by its activities, the corporation subjected itself to in personam jurisdiction in the state. REASONING: y The Supremem Court of Washington held that the regular and systematic solicitation of orders in the DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed. DISSENT: CLASS NOTES