













Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
An analysis of two supreme court cases, asahi metal industry co. V. Superior court (1987) and j.m cintyre machinery, ltd. V. Nicastro (2011), which dealt with the issue of personal jurisdiction in product liability cases. The differing opinions of the justices in each case and how they impacted the jurisdiction rules in the united states. It also mentions how these cases influenced a new jersey supreme court ruling.
Typology: Slides
1 / 21
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
(U.S. 1987)
O’Connor (4): no power – need more than mere awareness that products will end up through stream of commerce in the forum state
Kennedy’s opinion (4) – no power, using O’Connor’s test
Breyer (concurring) (2) – no power, because no regular sales - but avoiding O’Connor’s/Kennedy’s test (in favor of something like Stevens’s interpretation of O’Connor’s test ?)
Ginsburg (dissenting) (3) – unclear what test should be, but it is satisfied given contacts with the US Docsity.com
Here, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, relying in part on Asahi , held that New Jersey’s courts can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer of a product so long as the manufacturer “knows or reasonably should know that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states.”
Burnham v. Superior Court (U.S. 1990)
Five theories
- Pennoyer - International Shoe power theory - McGee factors - Reasonably able to anticipate PJ due to actions - Scalia’s theory – OK if OK under Int’l Shoe but also OK if OK under Pennoyer and still used by states today
P (a citizen of Nebraska) sues D (a citizen of New York) for $100,000 damages in Nebraska state court in connection with a brawl that occurred in Illinois. D has never been to the state of Nebraska and owns no property there. D appears to argue that the Nebraska state court lacks personal jurisdiction over her. Under Nebraska state law, however, motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are not allowed: Anyone appearing before a Nebraska state court, even when arguing lack of personal jurisdiction, submits himself to general personal jurisdiction.
U.S. Const. Amendment V.
No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Rule 4. Summons (k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service. (1) In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located;
(C) when authorized by a federal statute.
(2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction; and (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.
P (Va.) brings suit in federal court in Virginia against D, a German domiciliary residing in Germany, for a battery that the German committed against him in New York. The German has no other contacts with the United States besides the brief trip to NY during which the alleged battery occurred. Is there PJ?
venue in federal court