FREE AND STUDY GAMES ABOUT PJ COURT CASES EXAM

PDF Download

FREE AND STUDY GAMES ABOUT PJ COURT CASES EXAM

QUESTIONS

Actual Qs and Ans Expert-Verified Explanation

This Exam contains:

-Guarantee passing score -24 Questions and Answers -format set of multiple-choice -Expert-Verified Explanation

Question 1: what is the exception to world wide volkswagen rule

Answer:

foreseeability works if the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there.Question 2: Effects test can only be satisfied if the plaintiff can point to contacts which demonstrate that the defendant expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum, and thereby made the forum the focal point of the tortious activity. T/F

Answer:

True

Question 3: Hanson v. Deckla rule

Answer:

The defendant(corporations)must purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws

Question 4: calder effects test( stated in abdouch case)

Answer:

defendants tortious acts can serve as a course of personal jurisdiction only where the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the defendants acts were intentional aimed at the forum state , caused harm,which defendant knew was likely to be suffered.

Question 5: Piper Aircraft v. Reyno Rule

Answer:

Dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens may be granted even though the law applicable in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff's chance of recovery.l

Question 6: J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro rule

Answer:

transmission of goods permits jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum state, is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum state. must be purposeful availment

Question 7: International shoe co v. washington Rule/test

Answer:

Due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 8: zippo sliding scale test ( stated in abdouch case)

Answer:

considers a web site's interactivity and the nature of the commercial activities conducted over the internet to determine whether the courts have personal jurisdiction over non resident defendants

Question 9: Abdouch v. Lopez Rule

Answer:

Personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party engaged in conduct purposely directed at the forum state.

Question 10: Mullane V. Central Hanover bank and trust Rule

Answer:

Notice must be reasonably calculated,to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections

Question 11: Daimler AG v. Bauman Rule

Answer:

A court can assert general jurisdiction over a corporation if the corporation's affiliations with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation at home in the state.

Question 12: Atlantic marine construction co. v. united states district court

Rule

Answer:

when parties have agreed to a valid forum selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause. only under extraordinary conditions should 1404a motion be denied, unrelated to convivence of parties Question 13: The appropriate way to enforce a forum selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens. T/F

Answer:

True

Question 14: McGee v. international life rule

Answer:

A state court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state company if the company has substantial connections with the state.

Question 15: Burnham v. Superior Court Rule

Answer:

A non-resident is properly served if he is physically present in the forum state, and the forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over him without violating due process -

Question 16: two sides of the zippo sliding test

Answer:

at one end of the scale is passive, non interactive activities , ex: digital billboards, in this case the court wouldnt have jurisdiction. other side is highly interactive activities where it targets a given state, where pj may then be proper

Question 17: Shaffer v. Heitner rule

Answer:

Quasi in rem jurisdiction may only be asserted when the interests of the persons in the property seized have minimum contacts, ties, or relations to the state

Question 18: general jurisdiction for corporations

Answer:

With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are Paradigm basis for General jurisdiction.

Question 19: Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A v. Brown rule

Answer:

a court may assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation to hear all claims against it only when the corporations affiliations with the state in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in the forum state

Question 20: World wide volkswagen corp v. woodson rule

Answer:

Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state.

Question 21: Pennoyer v. neff rule

Answer:

Under the Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless she voluntarily appears in the court, is found within the state, resides in the state, or has property in the state that the court has attached.

Question 22: Gibbons v. Brown Rule

Answer:

Merely bringing a suit in a particular jurisdiction does not act indefinitely to expose that party to defending a future suit in the same jurisdiction.

Question 23: Bristol Myers Squibb co. v. superior court Rule

Answer:

For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue.