1

Agenda for 18th Class• Name plates out• Office hours next week W 4-5 (not M 4-5)• Personal Jurisdiction:

– Hanson and McGee– World-Wide Volkswagen

• Next Class– Yeazell pp. 124-21– Questions to think about

• Yeazell pp. 131ff Qs 1- 4• How would McIntyre have been decided under White’s view of the

“stream of commerce” theory as expressed in his opinion in World-Wide Volkswagen

• How would McIntyre have been decided under O’Connor’s “stream of commerce” plus theory

• See questions on the next 2 pages

2

Next Class (continued)• How is Kennedy’s view of jurisdiction based on the “stream of commerce”

different from White’s and O’Connor’s? In what cases would they reach the same result? In what cases different results?

• Suppose the California courts and juries are relatively generous to product liability plaintiffs, but Nevada courts and juries are relatively stingy. A Chinese company which is breaking into the US market is considering two distributors, one based in California and another based in Nevada. The two distributors seem roughly equal in quality and price. Which distributor would you advise the Chinese company to select. Why?

• Suppose Washington state is suffering from high unemployment. Its legislators would like to find a way to expand employment by encouraging Chinese manufacturers to choose distributors based in Washington state. You are an adviser to a Washington state legislator. What changes would you suggest that Washington state make to its laws?

3

Next Class (continued)• If you were on the Supreme Court, in what situations would you allow those

injured by products to sue the manufacturer? Would you adopt White’s Stream of Commerce theory? O’Connor’s Stream of Commerce plus? Kennedy’s theory in McIntyre? Some other rule?

4

Last Class• International Shoe

– Don’t analyze in personam jurisdiction over corporations by asking if corporation is “present” in state

– Instead analyze “minimum contacts”– Continuous and systematic contacts give rise to general jurisdiction

• Corporation can be sued even if lawsuit is not related to contacts with state

– More sporadic contacts give rise to specific jurisdiction• Corporation can be sued only if lawsuit is related to contacts with

state• In rem can be based on personal property

– But uncommon

5

McGee; Hanson• McGee v International Life (1957). Yeazell p. 89.

– Franklin (CA resident) purchased life insurance by mail from out-of-state insurer. He died, and insurer refused to pay. Beneficiaries sued insurer in California.

– Held: California courts can constitutionally exert jurisdiction, because contract “was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there and the insured was a resident of that State when he died.”

• Hanson v Denkla (1958). Yeazell p. 90– Mrs. Donner (PA resident) created a trust in Delaware, with a Delaware

bank as trustee. Later she moved to Florida. After she died, potential beneficiaries filed suit in Florida over the administration of the trust

– Held. Florida courts cannot constitutional exert jurisdiction because:• Defendant “has no office in Florida and transacts no business

there… no solicitation of business in that State either in person or by mail.”

• “The unilateral activity of [Mrs. Donner] … cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state.”

• For jurisdiction, defendant must “purposefully avail[] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.”

• “Purposeful availment” becomes key requirement for jurisdiction

6

Questions on WWVW I• Briefly summarize World Wide Volkswagen• Yeazell pp. 109ff 1c, 4e• Did the plaintiffs in World-Wide Volkswagen sue in federal or state court?

How can you tell from the opinion itself (not Yeazell’s notes)?• What is a writ of prohibition? Why did the defendants seek one?• Who is Woodson? How did he get in the case?• There were four defendants in the original action. Which of them challenged

jurisdiction? What if anything, did the U.S. Supreme Court decide about jurisdiction over each of the four defendants. If there were some defendants for whom the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on personal jurisdiction, how would you argue that the trial court had jurisdiction over them? How would you argue that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over them?

• Would the case have come out differently if the Robinsons had gotten into an accident in New Jersey and sued in a New Jersey court, but the facts were otherwise the same?

• Suppose the Robinsons had purchased their Audi in California from Pacific Audi in Torrance, had gotten into an accident in California, and sued Audi, Volkswagen of America, Pacific Volkswagen (the regional distributor, based in Nevada) and Pacific Audi in a California court. Would the California court have jurisdiction over all, some, or none of the defendants? Note that there is a passage in the opinion which directly addresses this question. Is it dicta?