World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v Woodson

Reviews
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson 1980 Personal Jurisdiction > Specific Jurisdiction CivPro – pg96 – 10/27/09 Parties: Π – Injured Drivers ∆ - Car Dealer/Distributors Procedural History: - Case brought in Okla. Where accident occurred - Special appearance by ∆s to quash jurisdiction o Okla SC denied - Writ of certiori granted Facts: - π involved in car accident in Oklahoma - Were driving vehicle purchased from ∆ from NY to Arizona where they were moving - Drunk driver who hit them not in the suit (judgment proof) Legal Issue: Should personal jurisdiction be granted when the only contact to a state is the incidence occurring there? Holding: No. Personal jurisdiction requires the Intntl Shoe test of minimum contacts even when the claim in dispute occurred in that state. Reasoning: - Intnl Shoe purpose: o Protect ∆ from litigating in distant fora o Restrict reach of states - Reasons to allow personal jurisdiction elsewhere o Stat’es interest in adjudicating the dispute o Π interest in convenient and effective relief o Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution o Shared interest amongst states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies - Personal jurisdiction restrictions have relaxed significantly over time o But they can never overcome the constitutional balance between federalism and statism  Even if (x3) other factors suggest otherwise - This case has only the contact of one, isolated occurrence o Just b/c a car could foreseeably be driven to Okla Ø make it a sufficient arg  If allowed then “every seller of chattels would in effect appoint the chattel his agent for service of process” and could face trial anywhere  Forseeability Ø irrelevant though  Allows ∆ to minimally structure conduct based on where they can anticipate litigation Disposition: Reversed Dissent/Concurrence: - Dissent - Brennan o Majority uses intntl shoe too narrowly  In fact it may even be outdated o Other factors should be given more weight o o  State’s interest  ∆ actual inconvenience Autos are designed to be driven around Focusing exclusively on the rights of ∆ is outdated

Related docs
premium docs
Other docs by Tommy Trojan
Efficient Breach
Views: 29  |  Downloads: 1
Efficient Breach Scenarios
Views: 14  |  Downloads: 0
Bases of Recovery and Measures of Damages
Views: 7  |  Downloads: 0
Reliance as a Theory of Liability
Views: 29  |  Downloads: 0
Statute of Frauds
Views: 36  |  Downloads: 2
Classical v Ralist Theories of Assent
Views: 8  |  Downloads: 0
The Content of the Contract
Views: 20  |  Downloads: 2
Defenses to Formation
Views: 6  |  Downloads: 0
PROMISES_ CONDITIONS _ PROMISSORY CONDITIONS
Views: 31  |  Downloads: 2
Remedies Review
Views: 35  |  Downloads: 6
Wassermans Inc v Township of Middletown
Views: 27  |  Downloads: 1
Daly v General Motors Corp
Views: 19  |  Downloads: 1
MacDonald v Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp
Views: 35  |  Downloads: 5
Fera v Village Plaza Inc
Views: 43  |  Downloads: 3
Kenford Co. v. County of Erie
Views: 47  |  Downloads: 4