Outlining ► Outliningis important for this course so that you can have ready access to the rules from the cases on the open book exam is also important just in general, because ► It DOING IT actually makes you learn the cases! ► Itmay seem like a pain, but it doesn’t have to be… ►First: Use Professor Steinman’s Syllabus as a skeleton outline I. Personal jurisdiction: Over whom or what may a state court exercise its authority? A. The necessary relationship between the defendant and the state 1. Historical focus on the power of the forum state to enforce its judgment ►Second: Fill in Case names: I. Personal jurisdiction: Over whom or what may a state court exercise its authority? A. The necessary relationship between the defendant and the state 1. Historical focus on the power of the forum state to enforce its judgment 1. Cases: 1. Pennoyer v. Neff 2. Harris v. Balk 3. Hess v. Pawlowski ►Now fill in the cases: You should include at least: ►The RULE of the case (i.e. what the case stands for. Example: Pennoyer v. Neff stands for the traditional state power theory of personal jurisdiction ►TheCourt’s Reasoning (enough so that you know WHY the case came out this way) Example: The Pennoyer court relied on traditional notions of state sovereignty Facts: (again, enough so that you can ►Critical recognize the fact pattern in the case) Example: In Pennoyer, the defendant’s property was NOT attached at the commencement of the lawsuit ►When filling in the case RULE: You can use a source such as Gilberts Outline as a way to pinpoint what the rule is. BUT! ►Always be sure to rely on what you get from class discussion over what Gilbert (or any other outline) says. Sometimes professors emphasize different things about cases then the commercial outlines do. ►When filling in the REASONING: The reasoning of the court is helpful for you in your analysis of exam questions. For example, since we know that in World Wide Volkswagon, the court stated that the “stream of commerce” ENDS with purchase by the consumer… ►We can apply that reasoning if we find similar facts in the exam question… For example: what if the hypo is about personal jurisdiction over a company that builds electric eyes for elevators …who is the consumer? Where does the stream end? Could anyone using the elevator be considered a consumer?... Analogize from Grey, WWV and Asahi and make a reasoned judgment… ►When filling in the CRITICAL FACTS: This is the “meat and potatos” of exams(woman)ship!! ►Pay special attention to dispositive facts in a case. THIS is exactly what you are looking for in the exam. ►For example: What if an exam hypo states the following facts: Joe Jones from Illinois married a woman from Germany. They moved to Indiana for school, where they recently discovered that their landlord was constantly listening to them through a bug he had installed in their apartment. WHAT case does that sound like? ► MAS V. PERRY of course! Next… ► Some writing…. So, take out a piece of paper… PJ Hypo: ► John Jones, president of Kent, Inc. located in New York City, was attending an international retreat of his company at the Sunset Hotel (Sunset) in Hong Kong, part of the Elegance Worldwide Hotel chain. After a long day of business discussions, he decided to relax in the hotel pool. He drowned in the pool while the two lifeguards were both having coffee. When they found him, they refused to administer the proper lifesaving procedures. ► Kent’s education department had received an attractive brochure featuring the new pool from Sunset earlier in the year. Kent had had two international meetings at Sunset in years past. Kent entered into several months of negotiations with Sunset about rates, dates and specifications of meeting rooms. ► Mrs. Jones filed a wrongful death suit against Sunset in the federal court for the Southern district of NY. NY’s long arm statute provides for jurisdiction over an out of state defendant for a cause of action arising from the defendant’s transaction of business in the state. In its answer, Sunset raised as a defense, lack of personal jurisdiction. What result? (Do not analyze notice) PJ Answer Outline: 1. State statute: “provides for jurisdiction over an out of state defendant for a cause of action arising from the defendant’s transaction of business in the state”. Did Sunset transact business in the state? ► Yes: they sent brochures and negotiated contracts ► No: they only transacted business in Hong Kong. ► Can argue both but probably Jx is ok under the state statute. 2. 14 th Amendment due process requires Invoked basis and reasonable notice ► Traditional Pennoyer bases: Citizenship? No Consent? No Presence of property? No Status? No Personal service in state? No ► Minimum contacts: depends on quality and nature of acts within the state, and fair and orderly administration Purposeful availment (depends on chosen intent to benefit, and foreseeability of being haled into court) ► Acts within the state: single isolated or continuous systematic? Probably Single isolated: negotiations and sending of brochures. Analyze under McGee, single contact can be enough if related) Related or unrelated? Analyzed under McGee, the sending of the brochures is related to the accident, even though the accident probably doesn’t “arise out of” the brochures. ► Acts outside of state MUST be related to claim: Can also analyze under Burger King, intentional affiliation with forum actor. Use the negotiations and the fact that Sunset had hosted 2 of Kent’s International meetings. Fair and orderly administration of the laws ► Burden on defendant to defend in NY? Is not so big, they are an international chain. ► Burden on Pl to bring suit in Hong Kong? Is huge burden. ► Where is the evidence?