Tues., Oct. 7

1
Tues., Oct. 7
2
specific jurisdiction
3
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court(U.S.
1987)
4
Justice O'CONNOR announced the judgment of the
Court and delivered the unanimous  opinion of
the Court with respect to Part I, the opinion of
the Court with respect to Part II-B, in which THE
CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice BRENNAN, Justice WHITE,
Justice MARSHALL, Justice BLACKMUN, Justice
POWELL, and Justice STEVENS join, and an opinion
with respect to Parts II-A and III, in which THE
CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice POWELL, and Justice SCALIA
join.
5
Part II-B OConnor, Rehnquist, Brennan, White,
Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, StevensPart II-A -
OConnor, Rehnquist, Powell, Scalia
6
Part II-A
7
Additional conduct of the defendant may indicate
an intent or purpose to serve the market in the
forum State, for example, designing the product
for the market in the forum State, advertising in
the forum State, establishing channels for
providing regular advice to customers in the
forum State, or marketing the product through a
distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales
agent in the forum State. But a defendant's
awareness that the stream of commerce may or will
sweep the product into the forum State does not
convert the mere act of placing the product into
the stream into an act purposefully directed
toward the forum State. (O'Connor II.A)
8
Brennans concurrenceBrennan, White, Marshall,
Blackmun
9
As long as a participant in this process is aware
that the final product is being marketed in the
forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there
cannot come as a surprise. Nor will the
litigation present a burden for which there is no
corresponding benefit. A defendant who has placed
goods in the stream of commerce benefits
economically from the retail sale of the final
product in the forum State, and
indirectly benefits from the State's laws that
regulate and facilitate commercial
activity.(Brennan, concurring)
10
Stevenss concurrence
11
The plurality seems to assume that an unwavering
line can be drawn between "mere awareness" that a
component will find its way into the forum State
and "purposeful availment" of the forum's market.
Over the course of its dealings with Cheng Shin,
Asahi has arguably engaged in a higher quantum of
conduct than "the placement of a product into
the stream of commerce, without more...." Whether
or not this conduct rises to the level of
purposeful availment requires a constitutional
determination that is affected by the volume, the
value, and the hazardous character of the
components. In most circumstances I would be
inclined to conclude that a regular course of
dealing that results in deliveries of over
100,000 units annually over a period of several
years would constitute "purposeful availment"
even though the item delivered to the forum State
was a standard product marketed throughout the
world.(Stevens, concurring with White and
Blackmun)
12
J. M c INTYRE MACHINERY, LTD., v.
NICASTRO(U.S., June 27, 2011)
13
Kennedys opinion (4)Breyers concurrence
(2)Ginsburgs dissent (3)
14
Kennedys opinion
15
KennedyThe principal inquiry in cases of this
sort is whether the defendants activities
manifest an intention to submit to the power of a
sovereign.Sometimes a defendant does so by
sending its goods rather than its agents. The
defendants transmission of goods permits the
exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant
can be said to have targeted the forum as a
general rule, it is not enough that the defendant
might have predicted that its goods will reach
the forum State.
16
These facts may reveal an intent to serve the U.
S. market, but they do not show that J. McIntyre
purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey
market.
17
Breyers concurrence
18
Here, the relevant facts found by the New Jersey
Supreme Court show no regular flow or
regular course of sales in New Jersey and
there is no something more, such as special
state-related design, advertising, advice,
marketing, or anything else. Mr. Nicastro, who
here bears the burden of proving jurisdiction,
has shown no specific effort by the British
Manufacturer to sell in New Jersey. (Breyer,
concurring)
19
Ginsburgs dissent
20
Ginsburg In sum, McIntyre UK, by engaging
McIntyre America to promote and sell its machines
in the United States, purposefully availed
itself of the United States market nationwide,
not a market in a single State or a discrete
collection of States.
21
No issue of the fair and reasonable allocation
of adjudicatory authority among States of the
United States is present in this case. New
Jerseys exercise of personal jurisdiction over a
foreign manufacturer whose dangerous product
caused a workplace injury in New Jersey does not
tread on the domain, or diminish the sovereignty,
of any sister State.
22
Breyer What might appear fair in the case of a
large manufacturer which specifically seeks, or
expects, an equal-sized distributor to sell its
product in a distant State might seem unfair in
the case of a small manufacturer (say, an
Appalachian potter) who sells his product (cups
and saucers) exclusively to a large distributor,
who resells a single item (a coffee mug) to a
buyer from a distant State (Hawaii).
23
Ginsburg Is it not fair and reasonable, given
the mode of trading of which this case is an
example, to require the international seller to
defend at the place its products cause injury? Do
not litigational convenience and choice-of-law
considerations point in that direction? On what
measure of reason and fairness can it be
considered undue to require McIntyre UK to defend
in New Jersey as an incident of its efforts to
develop a market for its industrial machines
anywhere and everywhere in the United States? Is
not the burden on McIntyre UK to defend in New
Jersey fair, i.e. , a reasonable cost of
transacting business internationally, in
comparison to the burden on Nicastro to go to
Nottingham, England to gain recompense for an
injury he sustained using McIntyres product at
his workplace in Saddle Brook, New Jersey?
24
intentional torts
25
Calder v. Jones (U.S. 1984)- Floridian Natl
Enquirer writer and editor were sued, along with
publisher and distributor, for defamation in CA
state court by CA resident- Writer and editor
argued no PJ in CA because they had no control
over where the distribution was- SCt held
unanimously there was PJ
26
Walden v. Fiore
27
- Foreign terrorist kills Americans abroad- He
knows they are Americans- He is sued by the
families in U.S. in a U.S. court - PJ?
28
quasi in rem
29
Shaffer v. Heitner(US 1977)
30
shareholders derivative action
31
Appellants contend that the sequestration statute
as applied in this case violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both because
it permits the state courts to exercise
jurisdiction despite the absence of sufficient
contacts among the defendants, the litigation,
and the State of Delaware and because it
authorizes the deprivation of defendants'
property without providing adequate procedural
safeguards. 
32
footnote 12Under Delaware law, defendants whose
property has been sequestered must enter a
general appearance, thus subjecting themselves to
in personam liability, before they can defend on
the merits.
33
The primary rationale for treating the presence
of property as a sufficient basis for
jurisdiction to adjudicate claims over which the
State would not have jurisdiction if
International Shoe applied is that a wrongdoer
"should not be able to avoid payment of his
obligations by the expedient of removing his
assets to a place where he is not subject to an
in personam suit."
34
I would explicitly reserve judgment . . . on
whether the ownership of some forms of property
whose situs is indisputably and permanently
located within a State may, without more, provide
the contacts necessary to subject a defendant to
jurisdiction within the State to the extent of
the value of the property. In the case of real
property, in particular, preservation of the
common law concept of quasi in rem jurisdiction
arguably would avoid the uncertainty of the
general International Shoe standard without
significant cost to traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice.Shaffer v. Heitner
(Powell, J. concurring)
35
The strong interest of Delaware in supervising
the management of a Delaware corporationis said
to derive from the role of Delaware law in
establishing the corporation and defining the
obligations owed to it by its officers and
directors. In order to protect this interest,
appellee concludes, Delaware's courts must have
jurisdiction over corporate fiduciaries such as
appellants.
36
This argument is undercut by the failure of the
Delaware Legislature to assert the state interest
appellee finds so compelling. Delaware law bases
jurisdiction not on appellants' status as
corporate fiduciaries, but rather on the presence
of their property in the State. Although the
sequestration procedure used here may be most
frequently used in derivative suits against
officers and directors, the authorizing statute
evinces no specific concern with such actions.