Conclusions on minimum contacts No rule because court was split Brennan’s camp: is a contact if I put my product into the stream and reasonably anticipate that it will get to state O’Connor: just placing a product into the stream of commerce without targeting a specific market is not enough (You need #1 PLUS an intent to serve states)/ World Wide: There must be some effort to market in the forum state (either directly or indirectly). The mere fact that a product finds its way into the forum state may not be enough Kennedy: D must direct his activity there (WWVW, McIntyre) Product designed and/or advertised in the state Channels for giving advice to consumers (like product fairs McIntyre) Marketing through distributor as agent If an independent company is distributing the products there might NOT be jurisdiction (Asahi, McIntyre) Ginsburg: Targeting of US as a whole might be enough to give jurisdiction in the 50 states With stream of commerce purposeful availment of market results in location ’s of product and accident. Control of use of stream and decision to enter. Chattel as the agent: the court doesn’t want the product to be a roaming agent for service of process Statutory Limits to Personal Jurisdiction Long-Arm Statutes Grant states the power to exercise based on constitutional test of jurisdiction “minimum contacts” Granted by statute Generally grant jurisdiction over specific acts require that the claim arise from the act itself Under limited in-state contacts only support over claims that International Shoe, jurisdiction arise from those contacts Many long-arm statutes authorize over Ds who act outside the state, but cause jurisdiction effects within the state Property Based Jurisdiction rem” “in Physical presence of property that is the subject of the dispute gives the forum power to adjudicate State decides the of the property and judgment is binding on all parties interested in “status” the property Must attach property at the of the suit (Pennoyer v. Neff) beginning in rem” “quasi There is property in the forum state, BUT the claim does NOT arise from the property The property may be related to the OR unrelated controversy (1977) Shaffer v. Heitner Stock in corporation is at stake, but is unrelated to the claim
Conclusions on minimum contacts No rule because court was split Brennan’s camp: is a contact if I put my product into the stream and reasonably anticipate that it will get to state O’Connor: just placing a product into the stream of commerce without targeting a specific market is not enough (You need #1 PLUS an intent to serve states)/ World Wide: There must be some effort to market in the forum state (either directly or indirectly). The mere fact that a product finds its way into the forum state may not be enough Kennedy: D must direct his activity there (WWVW, McIntyre) Product designed and/or advertised in the state Channels for giving advice to consumers (like product fairs McIntyre) Marketing through distributor as agent If an independent company is distributing the products there might NOT be jurisdiction (Asahi, McIntyre) Ginsburg: Targeting of US as a whole might be enough to give jurisdiction in the 50 states With stream of commerce ’s purposeful availment of market results in location of product and accident. Control of use of stream and decision to enter. Chattel as the agent: the court doesn’t want the product to be a roaming agent for service of process Statutory Limits to Personal Jurisdiction Long-Arm Statutes Grant states the power to exercise jurisdiction based on constitutional test of “minimum contacts” Granted by statute Generally grant jurisdiction over specific acts require that the claim arise from the act itself Under International Shoe, limited in-state contacts only support jurisdiction over claims that arise from those contacts Many long-arm statutes authorize jurisdiction over Ds who act outside the state, but cause effects within the state Property Based Jurisdiction “in rem” Physical presence of property that is the subject of the dispute gives the forum power to adjudicate State decides the “status” of the property and judgment is binding on all parties interested in the property Must attach property at the beginning of the suit (Pennoyer v. Neff) “quasi in rem” There is property in the forum state, BUT the claim does NOT arise from the property The property may be related to the controversy OR unrelated Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) Stock in corporation is at stake, but is unrelated to the claim