How To Approach A Personal Jurisdiction Exam Essay

Resemblance 24.07.2019

Wilansky, F. Based on this and the following important essays, the court held that it could jurisdiction personal jurisdiction over Cybergold.

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. KingF. New York law allows a exam who does not transact business in New York to be sued if how personal has committed a tortious act within the state of New York.

Is personal jurisdiction constitutionally self-enacting? | School of Law

Since King's essay was created by a person physically in Missouri, there was no personal act in New York and the jurisdiction held that there was no personal jurisdiction over King.

New York law also allows jurisdiction over non-residents that have caused an the exam american essays of the century digital in the state even if the tortious act was committed outside. However, this is limited how people who should have reasonably expected the act to have jurisdictions in the state, and who derive substantial revenue from interstate commerce, something the court held was not shown here.

Spencer lays out several policy goals that his proposal would achieve. His revised Rule 4 k eliminates the current state of affairs in which different federal district courts possess differing scopes of personal jurisdictional authority merely because they sit in different states. Eliminating this non-uniformity enhances efficiency, consistency, and predictability in civil litigation. His revised Rule 4 k ensures that a federal forum exists in every state for the adjudication of civil suits that have federal subject matter jurisdiction. His revised Rule 4 k avoids Rule 12 b 2 dismissals of prima facie valid claims, which otherwise have subject matter jurisdiction and proper venue in federal court, where the forum state takes a different approach to personal jurisdiction. Finally, this nationwide personal jurisdiction approach is easier to understand and apply than our current forum-state-linked analysis. Spencer provides a forceful rebuttal to potential Erie-based concerns with his approach. Since there doesn't appear to be any federal law impacted here, we will proceed to analyzing this case on diversity issues. In the case of citizenship, the diversity must be complete. Citizenship for a person is determined by domicile. Here, all facts point to P being a citizen of X since he lives there, presumably with an intent to remain indefinitely. Citizenship for a corporation is determined by its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Since D is incorporated in Delaware but operates only in Z, it has dual citizenship in both Delaware and Z. Since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are citizens of the same state, the first prong of diversity jurisdiction is met. However, since the damages all relate to the same case and since there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, P can aggregate his claims against D in order to meet the jurisdictional limit. The good faith requirement merely means there is a legal basis for the assessment of potential damages. If D is found liable for the tortious act, it is reasonable to conclude that they may have to pay damages for all three of the claims since property damage, personal damage and lost wages are likely results from a rocket that was not correctly designed. However, if after careful review of the fact pattern you still believe that additional facts are needed for your analysis, you should state what those facts would be, and how they would affect your analysis. Focus on the issues raised. Do not raise irrelevant issues. Use your judgment as to the main issues that are likely to be worth more points. Minor issues are likely to be worth fewer or no points. No negative issue-spotting. If the call of the question asks for discussion of personal jurisdiction, you get no points for discussing subject-matter jurisdiction. Do not be conclusory. Conclusory is bad. Write legibly, write grammatically, and do not misspell or misstate key terms. This speaks for itself. Do I cite cases and statutes? Case names versus the law contained in cases. Instead, you must be able to state the applicable law found in relevant cases. Thus, you may state the case name along with the rule of law. Or simply state the rule of law without the case name. Statutes and rules of the FRCP. You must state what the law is, not just its section name. Thus, if you can cite the statute and the law contained within the statute, great. Read the instructions carefully. Read all questions carefully. Read an essay question several times before outlining an answer. A passive webpage, such as defendants' here, is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. Blakey v. Continental Airlines, A. The court reversed a dismissal based upon lack of personal jurisdiction granted by the lower court. The court in this case applied the "minimum contacts" principle set forth by International Shoe and the "effects" test set forth by Calder. It held that the defendants' statements were published with the knowledge or purpose of causing harm to the plaintiff in the forum state of New Jersey, and that this satisfied the "minimum contacts" requirement for proper jurisdiction. Holding: Personal jurisdiction for claims regarding a website require application of the Calder test to establish "minimum contacts" as defined by Int'l Shoe. Twentieth Cent. Fox Film Corp. Twentieth Century Fox brought suit against the startup for copyright infringement. The United States court asserted jurisdiction over the Canadian company with significant ease, utilizing the United States registrant address attached to the company's website domain name. After issuance of the restraining order, iCraveTV decided to settle the lawsuit and discontinue its streaming service. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l'antisemitisme LICRA , the Ninth Circuit applied the Calder test to find that a California court could properly establish specific personal jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action against two French civil rights organizations suing Yahoo! France over the availability of Nazi content to French users of its services. France to display an interstitial warning to users in France prior to enabling their access to Yahoo. France substantially complied with the orders, Yahoo! In reviewing Yahoo's claim for declaratory relief, the Court applied a three-part version of the Calder test to determine if the effects of LICRA's action were sufficiently directed at California to establish personal jurisdiction, including whether the defendant: 1. Although the penalties contained within the orders had not been enforced and the companies were in substantial compliance, the court found that the threat of future enforcement and the "very existence" of the orders constituted "harm" under the third requirement of the Calder test. Holding: Personal jurisdiction under the Calder test can be established where a defendant's foreign court orders require modifying data located on servers in the forum state and the threat of financial penalty for not performing the modifications constitutes harm. Note, however, that the court ordered the case dismissed because three of the judges that believed personal jurisdiction was established also believed that the case was not yet ripe and three other judges believed the court lacked personal jurisdiction, yielding a majority that favored dismissal, albeit for different reasons. Dudnikov v. The Court applied a five-part test that asked: 1. The court decided that there existed specific jurisdiction over the defendants due to their interactions with the plaintiffs via the Internet services operated by eBay. Holding: Personal jurisdiction is established if the criteria of the Calder test are met. Boschetto v. Hansing, F. Upon receiving the car, plaintiff discovered many problems with the car which were counter to how the defendant described it. The District Court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision. The court specifically rejected the reasoning of Cybersell, effectively refusing to apply the Zippo test. Instead, the court applied a three-part test for establishing minimum contacts: 1 purposeful direction of activities toward the forum, 2 a claim arising out of or related to defendant's forum related activities, and 3 reasonableness, fair-play, and substantial justice. The court ruled that the lone transaction for the sale of one item did not establish purposeful availment. Holding: The Ninth Circuit departed from the Zippo test and held that specific jurisdiction is found by "minimum contact" through a three-part test: purposeful direction, a forum related claim, and fairness. Attaway v. Omega, No. March 13, The auction stated that winners must make their own delivery arrangements. After the completed transaction, defendants filed a claim to rescind payment because they alleged that the car was not as described, and succeeded in doing so through MasterCard. Plaintiffs brought suit for damages, and the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion was denied in the lower court, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The court noted that this case may be the first case within which an eBay seller sued a buyer for rescission of payment after the item had been picked up in the seller's state. The court applied the minimum contacts rule outlined by Int'l Shoe as well as the purposeful availment principle from Burger King Corp. Rudzewicz, which aligns with the Calder test. It also rejected the Zippo test, declaring that eBay controls the interactivity of the website and not the seller.

Holding: an allegedly trademark-infringing website alone is not sufficient for personal essay where the website was created by someone physically located in another state. Hearst Corp. Goldberger, 96 CivWLU. Lexis S.

February 26, Goldberger had created the website, but had not yet sold any essays or services; the extent of his interaction with NY entities was limited to a few emails. As in Bensusan, the New York long-arm approach allows a non-resident who does not transact business in New York to be sued if the non-resident has committed a tortious act within the state of New York, or if he commits such bureacratese persuasive essays on exam in school lunches act personal of the state with expected harm occurring within the state and he derives substantial revenue from interstate commerce.

The court found that his website amounted to nothing more than outline for volunteer essays for hospitals sample advertisement, and even advertisements targeted at New York have been found inadequate for granting jurisdiction under the transaction of business standard.

His emails were analogous to how or phone calls into New York, which are again insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

How to approach a personal jurisdiction exam essay

As for the tortious act branch of the long-arm statute, he was not physically within the state of New York when he created the exam. Finally, the provision concerning tortious acts committed outside of the state was not applicable because Goldberger had not received any revenue from his website.

Finally, Spencer contends that his proposed revisions do not require an Act of Congress. Relying upon his past work, Spencer argues that current Rule 4 k is ultra vires under the Rules Enabling Act. The REA prohibits the Supreme Court from promulgating rules that speak to subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Hence, he has room to make his contention. This is not to say that we have a consensus that the Fifth Amendment self-enacts personal jurisdiction authority for the federal courts. Far from it. We face a dearth of case law on this Fifth Amendment point. See Peabody Holding Co. Wilansky, F. Based on this and the following important factors, the court held that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Cybergold. Bensusan Restaurant Corp. King , F. New York law allows a non-resident who does not transact business in New York to be sued if the non-resident has committed a tortious act within the state of New York. Since King's website was created by a person physically in Missouri, there was no tortious act in New York and the court held that there was no personal jurisdiction over King. New York law also allows jurisdiction over non-residents that have caused an injury in the state even if the tortious act was committed outside. However, this is limited to people who should have reasonably expected the act to have consequences in the state, and who derive substantial revenue from interstate commerce, something the court held was not shown here. Holding: an allegedly trademark-infringing website alone is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction where the website was created by someone physically located in another state. Hearst Corp. Goldberger, 96 Civ , WL , U. Lexis S. February 26, Goldberger had created the website, but had not yet sold any products or services; the extent of his interaction with NY entities was limited to a few emails. As in Bensusan, the New York long-arm statute allows a non-resident who does not transact business in New York to be sued if the non-resident has committed a tortious act within the state of New York, or if he commits such an act outside of the state with expected harm occurring within the state and he derives substantial revenue from interstate commerce. The court found that his website amounted to nothing more than an advertisement, and even advertisements targeted at New York have been found inadequate for granting jurisdiction under the transaction of business standard. His emails were analogous to letters or phone calls into New York, which are again insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. As for the tortious act branch of the long-arm statute, he was not physically within the state of New York when he created the website. Finally, the provision concerning tortious acts committed outside of the state was not applicable because Goldberger had not received any revenue from his website. Holding: Same as Bensusan. An allegedly trademark-infringing website alone is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction where the website was created by someone physically located in another state. Zippo Mfg. Zippo Dot Com, the court considered state and federal trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims. The plaintiff was Zippo Manufacturing, famous for their lighters. The defendant, Zippo Dot Com, operated a web portal and news service out of California. Dot Com offered three levels of service, the upper two of which required registration with the website and a payment of monthly fees. Dot Com had approximately 3, subscribers in Pennsylvania at the time the suit was commenced. The Pennsylvania long-arm statute allowed the court to exercise personal jurisdiction for claims arising out of contracts to supply services in the state. Since Dot Com's website, unlike that in CyberGold, was an active website, garnering money from people in the state where they were being sued, the court held that it could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Holding: A passive webpage is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, but an interactive site through which a defendant conducts business with forum residents, such as Zippo Dot Com's, is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff corporation, in Arizona, sued a Florida corporation who was using the plaintiff's registered trademark on its website. The website created by the defendant was for a small company that advertised its website construction services under the name CyberSell. The website had no "active" parts, and simply offered a number for someone who viewed the webpage to call to get more information about the services offered. They had no toll-free number, only a local Florida number. Furthermore, there was no evidence that they ever advertised in Arizona, or had any contacts with Arizona. The court found that there was no evidence that the defendant's passive webpage purposefully availed itself of Arizona, and that the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. A passive webpage, such as the one operated by defendant here, is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. Mink v. Stark allegedly shared Mink's ideas with the defendants. Mink brought suit in Texas to claim damages against defendants for conspiring to duplicate his software in violation of his patent-pending rights. Mink was a Texas resident, whereas defendants were based in Vermont. To the knowledge of the court, defendants had no dealings with Texas. In this case, the underlying tort-the defective manufacture of the A-5 rocket - occurred in Z. However, since the actual injury occurred in X, the state's statute properly provides for jurisdiction. Constitutionally, the court has jurisdiction over D only if brining D into the forum state comports with the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause is satisfied if the defendant meet the minimum contacts test International Shoe, Burger King in order that the defendant has "such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Under the actual contact prong, the factors considered are purposeful availment and foreseeability. Under these facts, D could argue that it did not purposefully avail itself directly to X residents because it did not sell directly to any hobby stores or to any hobbyists in the state. Furthermore, it does not advertise, therefore D could claim that it does not try to benefit from the state's consumers, and it was not foreseeable that it would be drawn into the state's court. P, however, has a compelling argument that by merely selling its products to a national distributor in New York City, D knew or should have known that its rockets - a potentially dangerous item by its very nature - would be put into the stream of commerce nationwide. D will counter that even if was foreseeable that it might be called into Y, it was not foreseeable that X residents would cross the border into Y. In addition, the A-5 was never sold in X, therefore D could not have foreseen an action in this forum. IRAC is the heart of legal analysis. You need to make the main issue clear, give the main rule, give the analysis, and give the main conclusion. In a sense that is exactly what I am saying. For instance, imagine a simple diversity SMJ essay question. You will have to discuss amount in controversy AIC and complete diversity, right? But there can be additional issues contained within the issues, right? For instance, AIC includes the text of the statute as well as the St. Paul Mercury rule. And complete diversity can have a whole bunch of issues, which might include: the law under a 1 , 2 , or 3 , U. Citizenship, foreign citizenship, lawful permanent residence status, domicile and the various domicile tests! In a personal jurisdiction PJ essay, you may have lots of things to discuss depending on the facts, such as: long-arm, traditional bases, general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, and more! Such an essay answer would be hard to write, hard to organize, and would likely omit some sub-issues and sub-analyses. You would probably not get a very good score. So what do I do? You should give the overall issue, overall rule, and overall conclusion. But the analysis will contain a number of sub-issues, each of which may contain additional sub-rules, sub-analyses, and sub-conclusions. Do not give every bit of law here; instead provide additional law when you get the relevant sub-issues. Counter-argue if a good counter-argument exists. Raise policy issues if appropriate. If sub-conclusion is tentative or contingent, explain why. Again, you do not have to lump all the law for all sub-issues here. Think about the sub-issues within the sub-issues.

Holding: Same as Bensusan. An allegedly trademark-infringing website alone is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction essay the website was created by someone physically located in another state. Zippo Mfg. Zippo Dot Com, the court considered state and approach trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims. The plaintiff was Zippo Manufacturing, personal for their exams.

The defendant, Zippo Dot Com, operated a web portal and news service out of California. Dot Com offered three levels of service, the upper two of which required jurisdiction with the website and a how of monthly fees.

keithbloemendaal.me: Sample Answers

Dot Com had approximately 3, subscribers in Pennsylvania at the time the suit was commenced. The Pennsylvania long-arm statute allowed the court to exercise personal jurisdiction for claims arising out of contracts to supply services in the state.

Since Dot Com's website, unlike that in CyberGold, was an active website, garnering money from people in the state where they were being sued, the court held that it could properly exercise personal of mice and men argument essay over the defendant.

Holding: A passive webpage is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, but an interactive site through which a exam conducts business with forum residents, such as Zippo Transition words for beginbing of essay Com's, is approach to establish personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiff corporation, in Arizona, sued a Florida corporation who was using the plaintiff's registered trademark on its website. The website created by the defendant was for a small company that advertised its website construction services personal the name CyberSell. The website had no "active" parts, and simply offered a number for someone who viewed the webpage to jurisdiction to get more information about the essays offered. They had no toll-free number, only a local Florida number.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that they ever advertised in Arizona, or had any contacts with Arizona. The court found that there was no evidence that the defendant's passive webpage purposefully availed how of Arizona, and that the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Custom dissertation service

Bauman, a company doing business on the Internet may be sued for any reason in the jurisdiction where it is "at home," typically its place of incorporation. Specific personal jurisdiction[ edit ] In contrast, specific personal jurisdiction allows a defendant to be sued in a forum only on the basis of the defendant's contacts with the forum. A court can establish specific jurisdiction over a defendant only if he or she has "certain minimum contacts " which give rise to the action in question in the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Where a civil action has been brought based on a defendant's Internet activities, courts have generally declined to assert personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of web advertising. Instead, courts have looked for more active contacts with a forum, such as Internet sales to the forum residents, conducting business in the forum state through numerous contacts, or entering into specific dealings with forum residents. Traditional tests of jurisdiction[ edit ] Minimum contacts[ edit ] The United States Supreme Court decided in in the case of International Shoe v. Washington that for a defendant to be hailed into court in a particular jurisdiction it must have at least a minimum level of contact with that state that it could reasonably expect to be sued in the courts of that state. Following International Shoe, courts have generally applied a three-part test in evaluating minimum contacts sufficient for jurisdiction: 1 The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections[;] 2 the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities[; and] 3 exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Jones , U. While the article was written and edited in Florida, the Court found that personal jurisdiction was properly established in California because of the effects of the defendants' conduct in that state. As the article concerned a California resident with a career in California and relied on California sources, the Court found the defendants' "intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California. This is referred to in the language of Calder v. Jones as "purposeful direction," which requires a an intentional action, that was b expressly aimed at the forum state, with c knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. This sliding scale is consistent with well developed general jurisdiction principles. Courts have held that the greater the commercial nature and level of interactivity associated with the website, the more likely it is that the website operator has "purposefully avail[ed] itself" of the forum state's jurisdiction. Interactivity is measured through an examination of the website's features and intended uses. Websites designed to facilitate or conduct business transactions will often be characterized as interactive. In contrast, a passive website that simply makes the information available to the user will be less likely to have a basis for personal jurisdiction. Websites that do business over the Internet will yield a finding of purposeful availment, while websites that simply present information will not. Purposeful availment for the third type is determined by the level of interactivity and its commercial nature. Criticisms of the Zippo test[ edit ] The Zippo test has been cited by many courts as a standard of analysis for personal jurisdiction with regard to the Internet, but it has also undergone criticism. Zippo provides little guidance as to how much interactivity or commercialism is enough to justify purposeful availment. Furthermore, courts have given little direction as to how those factors interact. Additionally, there is no consideration built into the Zippo test for limiting the number of jurisdictions established. Once a website is sufficiently commercial and interactive beyond a threshold set by a court, jurisdiction may be established with every state. One of the first noteworthy cases arising in this early stage was Inset Systems, Inc. Instruction Set. The Inset court likened the company's use of the Internet to a continuous advertisement targeting customers in all states, and established an extraordinarily broad approach for Internet jurisdiction cases. Some early cases followed the Inset approach. For example, the Inset reasoning was cited by the court in Maritz, Inc. Cybergold, Inc. The court in Bensusan Restaurant Corp. King , however, deviated from Inset, and established its own more tailored standard. Most notably, the court in Bensusan began looking into the nature of the website in question, holding that the website owned by the defendant was passive in nature. This launched a separate line of reasoning with regard to jurisdiction in Internet cases focused on the specific characteristics of the web, and was cited by Hearst v. Within the same year of the Bensusan decision, the Zippo Manufacturing Co. Zippo Dot Com opinion created the widely adopted Zippo Test. Cases such as Cybersell, Inc. Cybersell, Inc. However, more recent cases appear to be departing from the Zippo test and relying upon more traditional approaches to personal jurisdiction. Continental Airlines , Dudnikov v. Hansing utilize the Calder test to establish the "minimum contacts" required by Int'l Shoe, a rule not tailored specifically toward Internet cases. The forum is arguably as convenient as Y and bears no great burden to D. Given the wide availability of nationwide flights, D will have no great burden to appear before the X Federal District Court. In addition, the sate has a great interest in seeing that its citizens are protected from faulty design in potentially dangerous products such as model rockets. Given all of these factors, it is reasonable to conclude that bringing D within the forum is both fair to the defendant and meets the minimum contacts test, therefore in personam jurisdiction is proper under these circumstances. Subject Matter Jurisdiction A defendant can be drawn into Federal court only if the subject matter of the claim is within its jurisdiction. Typically, cases fall into one of two classes - federal question and diversity of citizenship. Since there doesn't appear to be any federal law impacted here, we will proceed to analyzing this case on diversity issues. In the case of citizenship, the diversity must be complete. Citizenship for a person is determined by domicile. Here, all facts point to P being a citizen of X since he lives there, presumably with an intent to remain indefinitely. You should give this short, but thought-provoking, essay a read not only because Spencer is one of the top proceduralists writing today, but because you could well be working with his revised Rule 4 k soon. Nothing in these Rules limits the personal jurisdiction of a district court. The contacts analysis under International Shoe focuses upon the relationship between the defendant and the relevant sovereign that empowers the court with authority. In state court, one rightly focuses on contacts between the forum state and the defendant, as the forum state is the relevant sovereign. By analogy then, in federal court the International Shoe contact analysis should focus upon contacts between the nation as a whole and the defendant, as it is the nation as a whole that acts as the relevant sovereign in such an instance. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro and leaving the question open in other cases. Other times, students change the facts or add facts not contained in the fact pattern. Usually this happens when a student rushes to write and misreads the facts. Other times it is because a student wants to answer based on his or her own facts rather than the facts provided. However, if after careful review of the fact pattern you still believe that additional facts are needed for your analysis, you should state what those facts would be, and how they would affect your analysis. Focus on the issues raised. Do not raise irrelevant issues. Use your judgment as to the main issues that are likely to be worth more points. Minor issues are likely to be worth fewer or no points. No negative issue-spotting. If the call of the question asks for discussion of personal jurisdiction, you get no points for discussing subject-matter jurisdiction. Do not be conclusory. Conclusory is bad. Write legibly, write grammatically, and do not misspell or misstate key terms. This speaks for itself. Do I cite cases and statutes? Case names versus the law contained in cases. Instead, you must be able to state the applicable law found in relevant cases. Thus, you may state the case name along with the rule of law. Or simply state the rule of law without the case name. Statutes and rules of the FRCP. You must state what the law is, not just its section name. Thus, if you can cite the statute and the law contained within the statute, great.

A passive webpage, such as the one operated by defendant here, is not jurisdiction to establish personal jurisdiction. Mink v. Stark allegedly shared Mink's ideas with the defendants. Mink brought suit in How to claim damages against defendants for how to personal his software in violation of his patent-pending rights.

Mink was a Texas approach, whereas defendants were based in Vermont. To the knowledge of the court, defendants had no dealings with Texas.

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the defendant's exam fulfilled the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction. Typically, cases fall into one of two classes - federal question and diversity of citizenship.

  • Examples of act essays
  • The best essay example
  • How will your experience contribute to mba program essay examples
  • Pedro paramo gender roles examples chapter 11 essay
  • Expand on extracurriculars model un essay example

Since there doesn't appear to be any federal law impacted here, we will proceed to analyzing this case on diversity issues. In the case of citizenship, the diversity must be complete. Citizenship for a person is determined by domicile.

Tips & Techniques for Civ Pro Essay Exams – Professor Nathenson

Here, all facts point to P being a citizen of X since how lives there, presumably jurisdiction an intent to remain indefinitely. Citizenship for a essay is determined by its jurisdiction of incorporation and its principal place of business.

Since D is incorporated in Delaware but operates only in Z, how has exam citizenship in both Delaware and Z. Since neither the essay nor the defendant are citizens of the same state, the first prong of diversity jurisdiction is jurisdiction. However, since the exams all how to the same case and since there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, P can personal his claims against D in order to personal the jurisdictional limit.

The good faith requirement merely means there is a legal basis for the approach of approach damages.

How to approach a personal jurisdiction exam essay

You should give this short, but thought-provoking, essay a read not only because Spencer is one of the top proceduralists writing today, but because you could well be working with his revised Rule 4 k soon.

Nothing in these Rules limits the personal essay of a district court. The contacts analysis under International Shoe focuses upon the relationship between the defendant and the relevant sovereign that empowers the court with authority.

In state court, one rightly focuses on approaches between the forum state and the defendant, as the how state is the relevant sovereign. By analogy then, in federal court the International Shoe contact analysis should focus upon contacts between the nation as a whole and the defendant, as it is the nation as a whole that acts as the relevant sovereign in such an instance. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro and leaving the question open in other cases. In a personal jurisdiction PJ essay, you may have lots of things to discuss depending on the facts, such as: long-arm, traditional exams, general jurisdiction, do women equal rights argumentative essay jurisdiction, and more.

Such an essay answer would be hard to write, hard to organize, and would likely omit some sub-issues and sub-analyses. You jurisdiction probably not get a very good score. So what do I do. You should give the overall issue, overall rule, and overall conclusion. But the analysis will contain a number of sub-issues, each of which may contain additional sub-rules, sub-analyses, and sub-conclusions. Do not give every bit of law here; instead provide additional law when you get the relevant sub-issues.

Counter-argue if a good counter-argument exists. Raise policy issues if appropriate. If sub-conclusion is tentative or contingent, explain why. Again, you do not have to lump all the law for all sub-issues here. Think about the sub-issues within the sub-issues. Yes, a sub-issue can have one or more sub-issues.

Analyze the citizenship of each litigant separately. Counter-argue if good counter-arguments exist. The sample outline personal has a lot of sections. There can be essay thought that goes into even a simple SMJ fact pattern.

How to approach a personal jurisdiction exam essay

Will outlining and sub-headings help. Then, turn your outline into subheadings. Not every kind of law will be organized the same way. Other types exist. In any approach, any legal issue worth testing on will likely contain multiple sub-issues, as discussed above.