1 / 8

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 34

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 34. Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 9, 2005. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN V. WOODSON. RECAP. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985).

freja
Download Presentation

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 34

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. CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 34 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 9, 2005

  2. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN V. WOODSON • RECAP

  3. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) • What were Burger King’s claims against sue Rudzewicz and MacShara? What were Rudzewicz’s counter-claims? • Why did the federal district court for the S.D. of Florida have subject-matter jurisdiction? • BK (FL/FL) v. R (MI) and M (MI)

  4. Rudzewicz’s contacts with Florida • List Mr. Rudzewicz’s contacts/lack of contacts with Florida. • Had he ever traveled to Florida?

  5. “HAVE IT YOUR WAY”???? • According to the majority of the Supreme Court, did the District Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute violate due process? Why or why not? • How many Supreme Court justices dissented in this case? Why do they dissent?

  6. BRENNAN’S 2 STAGE REASONING • Brennan employed a 2 step analysis to determine that the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction did not violate due process

  7. CONTACTS TO CONSIDER IN A CONTRACT CASE • Can’t look at contract alone- it won’t be enough to result in constitutionality of jurisdiction over out-of-state D • Must also consider: prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, terms of contract, parties’ normal course of dealing

  8. CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE • Court says “when combined with the 20-year interdependent relationship Rudzewicz established with Burger King’s headquarters, it reinforced his deliberate affiliation with the forum state and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there.”

More Related