Personal Jurisdiction Essay

Minimum contact establishes an appropriateness for one state to assert its jurisdiction on a person or business in another state. When evaluating the facts of the case presented, it

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

There is such a thing as limited jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. There are reasons courts

Reasoning: Determining jurisdiction is critical because jurisdiction not only allows the party to know whether that court is entitled to adjudicate a dispute, but it can also help determine which laws are applicable, which can make a difference in a party's recovery. For example, Georgia and Delaware might have different laws regarding damages so that Elle may have an advantage in one court as compared to another court. In order for a court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the court must have some connection to either the parties or to the event in question. Therefore, the possibilities for jurisdiction include: the district court for the state of Georgia, the district court for the state of Delaware, or one of the state courts for either Georgia or Delaware. In order for federal jurisdiction to apply, the circumstances of the case must meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to that federal court jurisdiction involved when the parties involved are from two

Personal jurisdiction isn’t the only thing that the courts will look at it. They will also look at minimum contacts. Minimum contact is a nonresident defendant with the forum state that is sufficient for jurisdiction over the defendant to be proper. A lack of minimum contacts violates the nonresident defendant’s constitutional right to due process and “offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (Inm, 1992) (Min, 2001-2016).

(2010). In D. Batten (Ed.), Gale Encyclopedia of American Law (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 109-113). Detroit: Gale.

64: Original jurisdiction which means it can try all cases dealing with such subjects as:

Feedback: Questions of federal law and diversity between different states and citizens of different states are within the jurisdiction of Federal courts. State tort cases between citizens of the SAME state are restricted to state court.

This appeal is raised in the context of the trial court granting CHH’s motion for judgment. A motion for judgment is governed by Maryland Rule 2-519 which provides:

duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

In West Corp. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1167 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004), a California resident, Patricia Sanford, filed a class action complaint against West Corporation and WTC (a subsidiary of West Corp.), telemarketing firms organized in Delaware and headquartered in Nebraska, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the consumers legal remedies act; (2) unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices; (3) untrue and/or dishonest advertising; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud and deceit; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. Essentially, one of West’s telemarketers had misrepresented a product during a sales pitch in which the caller (Sanford) had purchased the product over the phone. West claims that the California court could not assert personal jurisdiction over them because they did not maintain any offices or employees in California, was not licensed to do business in California, nor did they own any property located in California. Moreover, West motioned the court to quash the service of summons; however, the court denied the request and ruled that the court was authorized to assert personal jurisdiction over their corporation.

Ms. Petrillo was so traumatized by her pastoral counselor’s conduct that she relocated to Madison, Wisconsin, where she established a new domicile and from where she has no intent to depart in any definite measure of time. The Court should deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ms. Petrillo’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Ms. Petrillo has her domicile in Wisconsin and each defendant has its domicile in Alabama. When there is complete diversity among the parties, a federal court may hear their case. 28 U.S.C.A § 1332(a) (West 2011). “Diversity” refers to the parties’ domiciles; if opposing parties are domiciled in different states, there is complete diversity among the parties. Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th

This case involves a dispute over whether the laws of North Montana, South Montana, or Old York should be applied. Old York and North Montana have laws that prevent insurance companies from putting provisions in their insurance contracts that prohibit the stacking of multiple insurance claims for a single incident. In contrast, South Montana specifically allows such provisions. This Court ultimately concludes that Old York’s law should apply in this case because this dispute is one over a contract and the place of contracting is Old York. Defendants argue that the public policy exception should apply, but this Court rejects this argument because the Old York law is not fundamentally against the public policy of this state.

Bound v. Smith was a North Carolina case that was filed by three (3) inmates against state administrators under section 1983,1. The facts of the case alleged that the inmates has been deprived of access to the courts in violation of their fourteen (14th) amendment rights by the state’s failure to provide legal research facilities (Shaw, 1978).

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.