1 / 12

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

This guide explores the complexities of personal jurisdiction within federal courts, emphasizing the legal framework established by Rule 4 and the interplay between state and federal jurisdiction. It discusses key concepts such as minimum contacts, purposeful availment, and substantial justice through real-world hypotheticals involving chocolate sales across state lines. With a focus on arguing from precedent, this resource aims to equip law students and practitioners with the critical skills necessary for navigating jurisdictional issues effectively.

azia
Télécharger la présentation

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court + +

  2. PERSONAL JURISDICTION: Federal Court • Burger King • What court? • Federal D. Ct. (FL)

  3. PERSONAL JURISDICTION:Federal Court • PJ Framework in federal court? • Rule 4(k)(1)(A) • incorporates state law pj req’ts • Rule 4(k)(2) • Fed PJ over def. not subj. to state gen’l jurisd.

  4. Federal Court PJ Power FR 4(k) Process FR4(a)-(j), (n) (1)(A) PJ in State (1)(D) U.S. Statute (1)(B) 100 mi. Bulge (FR 14 or 19) (1)(C) Fed. Inter- pleader (2) Const. + No State Gen’l Jurisd.

  5. SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Hypotheticals Chocolates, Chocolates, Chocolates • Chapter 1: Death by Chocolate • WA Tristia buys WA Jessica’s chocolates in N.Y. Choc’s distributed by N.Y. Brandon. Tristia stays in N.Y.

  6. SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Hypotheticals Chocolates, Chocolates, Chocolates • Chapter 2: Cataloguing Chocolates • CA J-Lo buys WA Jessica’s chocolates via nat’l catalogue

  7. SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT • Minimum contacts • Contacts • Claim/contact relationship • Purposeful availment • Foreseeability • Substantial Justice & Fair play • Burden on Defendant • Plaintiff’s interests • Forum state’s interests • Interests of “the several states”

  8. TAKEAWAYSBurger King • Conceptual Frameworks • Const. Limits v. State Authorization • Federal Court Personal Jurisdiction • FR 4(k) • Overlap of Power & Process • FR4(k)(1)(A) piggybacks on state law

  9. TAKEAWAYSSpecific Jurisdiction • Skills: Arguing From Precedent • Broad & Narrow Case Holdings • Synthesizing “Rule” of Cases • Identifying “sub-tests”

  10. TAKEAWAYSSpecific Jurisdiction • Skills: Recognizing Recurrent Arguments • Rules & standards

  11. TAKEAWAYSSpecific Jurisdiction • Doctrine • Elaborating “minimum contacts” • Claim/contact relationship • “Purposeful availment” • “Foreseeability”

  12. TAKEAWAYSSpecific Jurisdiction • Doctrine • Substantial Justice & Fairplay • A separate factor? • Considerations • Burden on defendant • Interests of forum state • Plaintiff’s interest • Interests of the “several States”

More Related