I. Personal Jx- in what states can the π sue the Δ.
a. In personam- pwr over the person. General jx- the Δ can be sued in that state for a claim that arose anywhere in the world. Specific jx- the Δ is being sued for a claim that arose from their actions w/in the forum.
i. Constitutional Limits- Due Process Circle
1. Pennoyer v. Neff- Traditional basis for in personam
1. The Δ is served with process in the forum- presence- general jx
2. Service on the Δ agent in the forum
3. The Δ is domiciled in the forum- general jx
4. The Δ consents to jx
2. Hess v Pelosky- expanded the traditional basis for in personam jx
1. The π wanted to sue the Δ for causing an accident in the state, but under the traditional way couldn’t serve process bc the Δ had left the state. That state court was able to uphold jx through the nonresident motorist statute- if you drive in our state; you are consenting to in personam jx and appointing a state official as your agent for service. Always specific jx.
3. International Shoe v. Washington
1. There is jx if the Δ has such minimum contacts with the forum so that jx, does not offend traditional notions, fair play and social justice.
i. You can serve process outside the forum by this time, as long as you meet the Shoe Test ii. There are 2 parts contact and fairness iii. Doesn’t overrule Pennoyer, test if Δ is not present when served
1. The TX company solicited the business in CA
2. CA had an interest in providing justice for its residents.
1. Under Internaitonl shoe the contact btwn the Δ and the forum must result from the Δ’s purposeful availment. The Δ must reach out to the forum.
2. No jx in FL over a DE bank, the bank only serviced a client in the forum, didn’t reach out.
6. World Wide Volkswagen-
1. NY family buys car in NY to move to AZ, in car accident in OK sue in OK for a car defect, sue 2 NY Δ in OK, no jx
2. No purposeful availment by the Δ.
3. It must be