Lawmaxxer

USA · 1L · Civil Procedure

Modern Personal Jurisdiction

From World-Wide Volkswagen to Ford.

1/5

Space flip · ← → navigate · S save

Show all 5 questions and answers in this book

  1. 1.World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980) — held?

    Mere foreseeability that a product might reach the forum is not enough; the defendant's conduct must be such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.

    World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)

  2. 2.Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) — held?

    All assertions of state-court jurisdiction, including quasi in rem, must satisfy the International Shoe minimum contacts standard.

    Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977)

  3. 3.Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) — general jurisdiction?

    A corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where it is "essentially at home" — typically its place of incorporation and principal place of business.

    Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014); Goodyear v. Brown (2011)

  4. 4.Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2017) — held?

    California lacked specific jurisdiction over non-residents' claims that had no connection between the forum and their specific claims.

    Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017)

  5. 5.Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) — held?

    Specific jurisdiction requires claims that "arise out of or relate to" forum contacts; strict causation is not required.

    Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021)