Civil Procedure Professor Washington The Power of Procedure The Power of Procedure The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice) The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice)

Civil ProcedureCivil ProcedureProfessor WashingtonProfessor Washington

The Power of ProcedureThe Power of Procedure

The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice)The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice)

In Re: Bell South (Case of Good Result Making In Re: Bell South (Case of Good Result Making Bad Law?)Bad Law?)

The Structure of Federal CourtsThe Structure of Federal Courts

U.S. Supreme Court (court of last appeal)U.S. Supreme Court (court of last appeal)

Courts of Appeal (the 13 Intermediate Courts of Appeal (the 13 Intermediate Appellate Courts)Appellate Courts)

District Courts (federal trial court)District Courts (federal trial court)

GA State Court StructureGA State Court Structure

GA Supreme Court GA Supreme Court

GA Courts of Appeal (intermediate GA Courts of Appeal (intermediate appellate court)appellate court)

GA Superior Court (trial court)GA Superior Court (trial court)

The Litigation ProcessThe Litigation Process

Pleadings & MotionsPleadings & Motions DiscoveryDiscovery Pre-trial AdjudicationPre-trial Adjudication TrialTrial Post-Trial Activity (e.g., appeals)Post-Trial Activity (e.g., appeals) Limits on Subsequent LitigationLimits on Subsequent Litigation

Pleadings: Initiating the ActionPleadings: Initiating the Action Deciding whether to sue (A Civil Action)Deciding whether to sue (A Civil Action)

Personal Jurisdiction (in which state / jurisdiction should we file Personal Jurisdiction (in which state / jurisdiction should we file the suit?)the suit?)

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (should we file in state court or Subject Matter Jurisdiction (should we file in state court or federal court?)federal court?)

Venue (which specific court within the jurisdiction should Venue (which specific court within the jurisdiction should entertain the lawsuit?)entertain the lawsuit?)

Service of Process (did we properly notify the defendant of the Service of Process (did we properly notify the defendant of the claim against her?)claim against her?)

Vertical Choice of Law Issues (i.e., Erie– should we apply state Vertical Choice of Law Issues (i.e., Erie– should we apply state or federal law?)or federal law?)

Hawkins v. Masters Farms Inc.Hawkins v. Masters Farms Inc.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction 28 USC 1331 Subject Matter Jurisdiction 28 USC 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 USC (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 USC 1332 (complete diversity jurisdiction)1332 (complete diversity jurisdiction)

Applicable Rule: a person is a citizen of the Applicable Rule: a person is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled; domicile state in which he or she is domiciled; domicile is established by physical presence in a place is established by physical presence in a place accompanied by a manifest intent to remain accompanied by a manifest intent to remain there indefinitely (not permanently)there indefinitely (not permanently)

Practice ProblemPractice Problem P a student at the University of P a student at the University of

Michigan spent his winter vacation at Michigan spent his winter vacation at his parents’ home in Champaign, IL. his parents’ home in Champaign, IL. While there, he was seriously injured While there, he was seriously injured in an auto accident with D, a lifelong in an auto accident with D, a lifelong resident of Champaign. resident of Champaign.

Can P sue in Federal Ct?Can P sue in Federal Ct? Which state can P initiate his suit in?Which state can P initiate his suit in?

Practice QuestionPractice Question

Assume that P files his case in federal Assume that P files his case in federal court in IL, which is divided into 3 court in IL, which is divided into 3 districts – the Northern District, the districts – the Northern District, the Central District (which contains Central District (which contains Champaign), and the Southern Champaign), and the Southern District. District.

On the facts where will venue be On the facts where will venue be proper?proper?

How the Constitution Shapes How the Constitution Shapes LitigationLitigation

Personal Jurisdiction (which forum Personal Jurisdiction (which forum state)state)

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (which Subject Matter Jurisdiction (which court state or federal)court state or federal)

Choice of Law (state or federal Choice of Law (state or federal jurisprudence)jurisprudence)

Relevant Constitutional ProvisionsRelevant Constitutional Provisions Subject Matter JurisdictionSubject Matter Jurisdiction

Art. III authorizes the establishment of the federal courts and Art. III authorizes the establishment of the federal courts and in Sect. 2 of that article sets the limitations of federal judicial in Sect. 2 of that article sets the limitations of federal judicial authorityauthority

Personal JurisdictionPersonal Jurisdiction

Art. IV Sect. 1 the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that Art. IV Sect. 1 the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that every state recognize and enforce judgments rendered by every state recognize and enforce judgments rendered by other state courts as long as said court had jurisdiction to other state courts as long as said court had jurisdiction to decide the casedecide the case

14th A Section 1 (Due Process Clause) provides, “no state shall 14th A Section 1 (Due Process Clause) provides, “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law”; this provision of the Constitution forms the process of law”; this provision of the Constitution forms the corner stone of personal jurisdictioncorner stone of personal jurisdiction

Choice of Law: Choice of Law:

Art. VI (Supremacy Clause) makes federal law and the U.S. Art. VI (Supremacy Clause) makes federal law and the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land given priority over Constitution the supreme law of the land given priority over state laws and state constitutionsstate laws and state constitutions

Pennoyer PrinciplesPennoyer Principles

State sovereignty / autonomy / authorityState sovereignty / autonomy / authorityState interest in property and persons within its State interest in property and persons within its

territoryterritory

Comity PrincipleComity PrincipleAnti-usurption DoctrineAnti-usurption Doctrine

Reciprocity / Mutuality Doctrine (relationship b/t Reciprocity / Mutuality Doctrine (relationship b/t States and States and citizens of the State)citizens of the State)

Full Faith and CreditFull Faith and Credit

D’s Due Process EntitlementsD’s Due Process Entitlements

Practice QPractice Q

A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns some land. A serves B in ND. B moves to some land. A serves B in ND. B moves to dismiss the MN action for lack of personal dismiss the MN action for lack of personal jurisdiction. What result?jurisdiction. What result?


A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns some land. A serves B in ND. B defaults some land. A serves B in ND. B defaults and the court enters judgment against her. and the court enters judgment against her. A takes the judgment to ND to enforce. B A takes the judgment to ND to enforce. B appears at the enforcement proceeding and appears at the enforcement proceeding and argues that the judgment is invalid and argues that the judgment is invalid and should not be enforced. What result?should not be enforced. What result?


A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns some land. A serves B while B is traveling some land. A serves B while B is traveling on business in MN. B moves to dismiss for on business in MN. B moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. What result?lack of personal jurisdiction. What result?


A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns some land. A serves B while B is traveling some land. A serves B while B is traveling on business in MN. B defaults. A recovers on business in MN. B defaults. A recovers a default judgment, which he then takes to a default judgment, which he then takes to ND to enforce. B appears at the ND to enforce. B appears at the enforcement proceeding and argues that the enforcement proceeding and argues that the judgment is invalid and should not be judgment is invalid and should not be enforced. What result?enforced. What result?


A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns some land. A attaches B’s land in MN and some land. A attaches B’s land in MN and obtains a judgment against B. A then seeks obtains a judgment against B. A then seeks to have the land sold to satisfy the to have the land sold to satisfy the judgment. B sues to enjoin the sale, arguing judgment. B sues to enjoin the sale, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over her that the court lacked jurisdiction over her or her land b/c she was not personally or her land b/c she was not personally served. What result?served. What result?


A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns some land. Without attaching B’s land, A some land. Without attaching B’s land, A serves B by publication, obtains a default serves B by publication, obtains a default judgment and sues to enforce that judgment judgment and sues to enforce that judgment in ND. B appears at the enforcement in ND. B appears at the enforcement proceeding and objects. What result?proceeding and objects. What result?


A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns some land for divorce. A notifies B in ND. some land for divorce. A notifies B in ND. B’s lawyer moves to dismiss challenging B’s lawyer moves to dismiss challenging personal jurisdiction. What result?personal jurisdiction. What result?


A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN, where B owns A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN, where B owns some land, for divorce, child support, and some land, for divorce, child support, and alimony. A notifies B in ND. B’s lawyer alimony. A notifies B in ND. B’s lawyer moves to dismiss challenging personal moves to dismiss challenging personal jurisdiction. What result?jurisdiction. What result?


A attempts to serve B while B is on a fishing A attempts to serve B while B is on a fishing trip on the MN-WI border. B moves to trip on the MN-WI border. B moves to dismiss the MN suit, claiming she was dismiss the MN suit, claiming she was served in WI. B loses the motion to dismiss. served in WI. B loses the motion to dismiss. A then gets a judgment and sues on the A then gets a judgment and sues on the judgment in ND. B appears at the judgment in ND. B appears at the enforcement proceeding and argues that the enforcement proceeding and argues that the MN judgment should not be enforced b/c MN judgment should not be enforced b/c the MN court lacked subject matter the MN court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. What result?jurisdiction. What result?

The Mechanics of Challenging The Mechanics of Challenging Personal JurisdictionPersonal Jurisdiction

Collateral AttackCollateral Attack

Filing a pre-answer motion pursuant to 12(b)(2)Filing a pre-answer motion pursuant to 12(b)(2)

Filing an answer containing a challenge to Filing an answer containing a challenge to personal jurisdictionpersonal jurisdiction

Special AppearanceSpecial Appearance


P files a complaint and the D files a P files a complaint and the D files a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The motion is denied and D then files a motion is denied and D then files a 22ndnd motion, this time pursuant to motion, this time pursuant to 12(b)(2). What result?12(b)(2). What result?


P files a complaint and the D files a P files a complaint and the D files a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The motion is denied and D then files an motion is denied and D then files an answer containing both a defense on answer containing both a defense on the merits and a 12(b)(2) challenge. the merits and a 12(b)(2) challenge. What result?What result?


P files a complaint and the D P files a complaint and the D answers the complaint including in answers the complaint including in her answer a 12(b)(2) challenge. her answer a 12(b)(2) challenge. What result?What result?


P files a complaint and the D files a P files a complaint and the D files a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. The 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. The motion is denied and D then files a motion is denied and D then files a 22ndnd motion, this time pursuant to motion, this time pursuant to 12(b)(2). What result?12(b)(2). What result?


P files a complaint and the D files a P files a complaint and the D files a 12(f) motion to strike scandalous 12(f) motion to strike scandalous allegations from the complaint. The allegations from the complaint. The motion is denied and D then files a motion is denied and D then files a 22ndnd motion, this time pursuant to motion, this time pursuant to 12(b)(2). What result?12(b)(2). What result?


P files a complaint and the D files a P files a complaint and the D files a motion to transfer venue under 28 motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. 1404. The motion is denied U.S.C. 1404. The motion is denied and D then files a 2and D then files a 2ndnd motion, this motion, this time pursuant to 12(b)(2). What time pursuant to 12(b)(2). What result?result?

4 Ways to Establish Personal Jurisdiction4 Ways to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Specific Jurisdiction (Sovereign Power; Specific Jurisdiction (Sovereign Power; Constitutional Basis)Constitutional Basis)

General Jurisdiction (Presence)General Jurisdiction (Presence)

Consent (forum selection clauses)Consent (forum selection clauses)

Notice (service of process)Notice (service of process)

The Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction The Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction JurisprudenceJurisprudence

Hess v. Pawloski Hess v. Pawloski (1927) (1927) (echoes Pennoyer’s (echoes Pennoyer’s Reciprocity / Mutuality Doctrine)Reciprocity / Mutuality Doctrine)

Milliken v. MeyerMilliken v. Meyer (1940) (e (1940) (emphasizes the mphasizes the concept of “responsibilities of state concept of “responsibilities of state citizenship” and characterizes Due Process in citizenship” and characterizes Due Process in terms of traditional notions of fair play and terms of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)substantial justice)

The Modern Personal The Modern Personal Jurisdiction FrameworkJurisdiction Framework

International ShoeInternational Shoe (1945) (1945) changed the principle changed the principle personal jurisdiction inquiry from, “is it there?” personal jurisdiction inquiry from, “is it there?” (Pennoyer) to “is it fair?”(Pennoyer) to “is it fair?”

Personal Jurisdiction Standards / Considerations: Personal Jurisdiction Standards / Considerations: consistent and systematic contacts; minimum contacts consistent and systematic contacts; minimum contacts w/ the state; notions of fair play and substantial w/ the state; notions of fair play and substantial justice; reasonableness; state interests; state justice; reasonableness; state interests; state sovereignty; inconvenience to the Dsovereignty; inconvenience to the D

General Jurisdiction (a broader grant General Jurisdiction (a broader grant of jurisdiction which allows D to be of jurisdiction which allows D to be sued without regard to subject sued without regard to subject matter of the law suit)matter of the law suit)

Specific Jurisdiction (a narrower grant Specific Jurisdiction (a narrower grant of jurisdiction which requires a nexus of jurisdiction which requires a nexus between D’s in state activities and between D’s in state activities and subject matter of law suit)subject matter of law suit)


A truck loaded with shoes, owned by A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l Shoe and driven by a Shoe Int’l Shoe and driven by a Shoe employee, traveled through WY on its employee, traveled through WY on its way to Washington. While in WY, the way to Washington. While in WY, the truck collided with a truck driven by a truck collided with a truck driven by a rancher, who was injured in the rancher, who was injured in the accident. The rancher filed suit vs. accident. The rancher filed suit vs. Shoe in WY alleging negligence of the Shoe in WY alleging negligence of the Shoe driver. Is personal jurisdiction Shoe driver. Is personal jurisdiction satisfied?satisfied?


A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l Shoe and driven by a Shoe employee, Shoe and driven by a Shoe employee, traveled through WY on its way to traveled through WY on its way to Washington. While in WY, the truck Washington. While in WY, the truck collided with a truck driven by a rancher, collided with a truck driven by a rancher, who was injured in the accident. A who was injured in the accident. A former Shoe employee residing in WY, former Shoe employee residing in WY, who used to work at the Missouri who used to work at the Missouri headquarters files suit alleging wrongful headquarters files suit alleging wrongful discharge in WY court. Is personal discharge in WY court. Is personal jurisdiction satisfied?jurisdiction satisfied?


A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l Shoe and driven by a Shoe employee, Shoe and driven by a Shoe employee, traveled through WY on its way to traveled through WY on its way to Washington. While in WY, the truck collided Washington. While in WY, the truck collided with a truck driven by a rancher, who was with a truck driven by a rancher, who was injured in the accident. A former Shoe injured in the accident. A former Shoe employee residing in WY, who used to work employee residing in WY, who used to work at the Missouri headquarters files suit at the Missouri headquarters files suit alleging wrongful discharge in Missouri alleging wrongful discharge in Missouri court. Is personal jurisdiction satisfied? court. Is personal jurisdiction satisfied? What if the suit was initiated in DE?What if the suit was initiated in DE?


A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l Shoe and A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l Shoe and driven by a Shoe employee, traveled through WY on driven by a Shoe employee, traveled through WY on its way to Washington. While in WY, the truck its way to Washington. While in WY, the truck collided with a truck driven by a rancher, who was collided with a truck driven by a rancher, who was injured in the accident. The rancher owns some shares injured in the accident. The rancher owns some shares of Shoe bonds on which the corporation has failed to of Shoe bonds on which the corporation has failed to pay interest when due. The rancher files suit vs. Shoe pay interest when due. The rancher files suit vs. Shoe in WY alleging negligence of the Shoe driver and for in WY alleging negligence of the Shoe driver and for the unpaid interest. Assume there is personal the unpaid interest. Assume there is personal jurisdiction for the personal injury claim. Is there jurisdiction for the personal injury claim. Is there personal jurisdiction for the claim seeking the bond personal jurisdiction for the claim seeking the bond interest?interest?

Review of ShoeReview of Shoe

General JurisdictionGeneral Jurisdiction

Substantial Contacts (legal term)Substantial Contacts (legal term) Domicile of Individual Domicile of Individual State of Incorp or PPB for State of Incorp or PPB for

CorporationsCorporations Proper NoticeProper Notice

Review of ShoeReview of Shoe Specific JurisdictionSpecific Jurisdiction

Minimum contacts: Nature and Quality of Action Minimum contacts: Nature and Quality of Action (continuous, systematic, persistent, frequency, quantity (continuous, systematic, persistent, frequency, quantity etc. . .)etc. . .)

Due Process Considerations (fairness, reasonableness, Due Process Considerations (fairness, reasonableness, justice, inconvenience to D)justice, inconvenience to D)

State interest (protecting its citizens, governing certain State interest (protecting its citizens, governing certain industries and enterprises that affect the well being of industries and enterprises that affect the well being of its citizenry, sovereignty, providing its citizens with a its citizenry, sovereignty, providing its citizens with a forum w/in which to resolve disputes)forum w/in which to resolve disputes)

Nexus Requirement: Substantive nexus b/t claims-and Nexus Requirement: Substantive nexus b/t claims-and in state activity that satisfies minimum contacts testin state activity that satisfies minimum contacts test

Proper noticeProper notice

Does the Shoe Fit?Does the Shoe Fit?

McGee v. International Life Ins. Co (S. Ct. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co (S. Ct. 1957)1957)

What is the Shoe consideration that the What is the Shoe consideration that the court emphasizes in reaching its decision?court emphasizes in reaching its decision?

Does this opinion expand or contract the Does this opinion expand or contract the jurisdictional authority of states?jurisdictional authority of states?


Hanson v. Denckla (S. Ct. 1958)Hanson v. Denckla (S. Ct. 1958)



How Does Shoe Fit?How Does Shoe Fit?

Shoe left the following two inquiries Shoe left the following two inquiries unanswered:unanswered:

1) How does the minimum contacts / fair play 1) How does the minimum contacts / fair play and substantial justice framework apply to and substantial justice framework apply to individuals?individuals?

2) Does the Shoe framework apply to in-2) Does the Shoe framework apply to in-personam and in-rem actions? personam and in-rem actions?

Pennoyer PersistsPennoyer Persists

Harris v. Balk (1905)Harris v. Balk (1905)

Holding: a state can acquire jurisdiction Holding: a state can acquire jurisdiction over persons whenever their debtors over persons whenever their debtors were present in the state by “attaching” were present in the state by “attaching” the debts. The result is to make the debts. The result is to make creditors liable to the extent of amounts creditors liable to the extent of amounts owed them in any state in which the owed them in any state in which the debtors set foot.debtors set foot.


Shaffer v. Heitner (S. Ct. 1977)Shaffer v. Heitner (S. Ct. 1977)



Overview of Personal Overview of Personal Jurisdiction LandscapeJurisdiction Landscape

Pennoyer (1877) Pennoyer (1877)

Base line case: The actual holding in the case could be Base line case: The actual holding in the case could be said to said to contractcontract state jurisdictional authority, but the state jurisdictional authority, but the broad principles espoused in the case advocate for more broad principles espoused in the case advocate for more expansive jurisdictional reach.expansive jurisdictional reach.

Articulates a distinction b/t in rem and in personam Articulates a distinction b/t in rem and in personam casescases

Key inquiry: “Is it there?”Key inquiry: “Is it there?”

Emphasizes state interest in persons and things found Emphasizes state interest in persons and things found within a state’s territory and the protection the newly within a state’s territory and the protection the newly enacted Due Process Clause provides to defendantsenacted Due Process Clause provides to defendants

Harris v. Balk (1905)Harris v. Balk (1905)

expandsexpands forum state jurisdictional forum state jurisdictional authority by applying the “Pennoyer authority by applying the “Pennoyer property principle” to include debt as property principle” to include debt as propertyproperty

International Shoe (1945)International Shoe (1945) expandsexpands state jurisdictional authority state jurisdictional authority

Announces “Minimum Contacts Test” (nature, quality Announces “Minimum Contacts Test” (nature, quality and character of contacts with the state)and character of contacts with the state)

Fair Play and Substantial Justice / Due Process Fair Play and Substantial Justice / Due Process Considerations (fairness, reasonableness, justice)Considerations (fairness, reasonableness, justice)

Adopted Specific Jurisdiction / General Jurisdiction Adopted Specific Jurisdiction / General Jurisdiction FrameworkFramework

Nexus requirement b/t claim and contactsNexus requirement b/t claim and contacts

Key inquiry: “Is it fair?”Key inquiry: “Is it fair?”

McGEE (1957)McGEE (1957)

expandsexpands forum state jurisdictional authority forum state jurisdictional authority

Uses Minimum Contacts testUses Minimum Contacts test

Broadens application of DP Considerations to consider Broadens application of DP Considerations to consider changes in modern transportation, technology and changes in modern transportation, technology and communicationscommunications

Emphasizes state interest Emphasizes state interest

Considered to have established a high water mark for Considered to have established a high water mark for states’ jurisdictional reachstates’ jurisdictional reach

HANSON (1958)HANSON (1958)

contractscontracts forum state jurisdictional authority forum state jurisdictional authority

Symbiotic / mutuality requirement to satisfy Symbiotic / mutuality requirement to satisfy minimum contacts and Due Process; unilateral minimum contacts and Due Process; unilateral activity is not sufficient to satisfy the Minimum activity is not sufficient to satisfy the Minimum Contacts testContacts test

Adds purposeful availment to framework which Adds purposeful availment to framework which echoes the mutuality principle considered in echoes the mutuality principle considered in PennoyerPennoyer

SHAFFER 1977SHAFFER 1977

contractscontracts forum state jurisdictional authority forum state jurisdictional authority

Announces that the Minimum Contacts Test applies to Announces that the Minimum Contacts Test applies to in-rem, quasi-in rem and in personam claimsin-rem, quasi-in rem and in personam claims

doesn’t make property within the forum state irrelevant doesn’t make property within the forum state irrelevant but considers its relevance within the context of the but considers its relevance within the context of the minimum contacts framework as a contact with the minimum contacts framework as a contact with the forum stateforum state

Considers plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient Considers plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief (i.e., availability of a forum)and effective relief (i.e., availability of a forum)

World-Wide Volkswagen (1980)World-Wide Volkswagen (1980)

World-Wide VolkswagenWorld-Wide Volkswagen contractscontracts forum state jurisdictional authority forum state jurisdictional authority

Distinguishes b/t forseeability and notice (i.e., reasonable Distinguishes b/t forseeability and notice (i.e., reasonable expectation / reasonable anticipation)expectation / reasonable anticipation)

considers purposeful availment (intentionally directing one’s considers purposeful availment (intentionally directing one’s product into the stream of commerce)product into the stream of commerce)

holding avoids an outcome inconsistent with a free market and holding avoids an outcome inconsistent with a free market and that would have an adverse impact on interstate commercethat would have an adverse impact on interstate commerce

unilateral act of P’s not sufficient to est. minimum contacts unilateral act of P’s not sufficient to est. minimum contacts (echoes Hanson)(echoes Hanson)

Asahi (1987)Asahi (1987)

Asahi (1987)Asahi (1987) contractscontracts forum state’s jurisdictional authority forum state’s jurisdictional authority

Seems to separate minimum contacts from considerations of fair Seems to separate minimum contacts from considerations of fair play and substantial justice and balance them vs. each otherplay and substantial justice and balance them vs. each other

Purposeful availmentPurposeful availment

Mere awareness does not satisfy minimum contactsMere awareness does not satisfy minimum contacts

Considers P’s interest in resolving dispute Considers P’s interest in resolving dispute

Considers State’s interest in resolving disputeConsiders State’s interest in resolving dispute

Considers Implications for international relationsConsiders Implications for international relations

Unilateral action is not sufficient to establish minimum contactsUnilateral action is not sufficient to establish minimum contacts

Documents

Civil Procedure Professor Washington The Power of Procedure The Power of Procedure The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice) The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice)