Just as a heads up for anyone watching this in 2022 or beyond, for general personal jurisdiction: even if the contacts with the forum state are continues and systematic, that no longer is something that can provide general PJ! i believe the case that changed that was Daimler (though i could be misremembering). now the only way that a state can have general PJ over a defendant is through the defendant's residency OR the defendant was served in the forum state (though that certainly doesn't mean that the state can't have specific PJ over the defendant). Great video btw, this has been helping me immensely in studying !!!
traditional bases 2:40 state long arm statutes 8:00 general jurisdiction 10:11 specific jurisdiction 13:59 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice 19:17
Nick N. Nematian my statement was clear, the way this video describes the subject was similar to the way my civ pro professor taught it. I don’t understand your question or your confusion.
🚨 SUPREME COURT UPDATE: After BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrell (U.S. 2017) (bit.ly/TyrellOpinion ), the "systematic and continuous activity" test referred to in this video from 10:26 to 12:14 has been almost completely eliminated. While the Court leaves the door open for “exceptional” cases, general jurisdiction over corporations (i.e., where the corporation is considered "at home") is mostly likely limited to locations where the corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business (i.e., the two locations where the corporation is considered a citizen). For now, the rest of the analysis covered in this video is mostly the same (i.e., when general jurisdiction is present, the defendant can be sued on any claim even if the claim is unrelated to the defendant’s contact with the forum state.). Stay tuned for an updated personal jurisdiction video!
@@studicata Would it be helpful to at least mention that the Court no longer seeks to determine if the activity of Defendant/corporation is systematic and continuous just so the examiner is aware that I know of the rule change and the new standard of review?
It might be a little bit. In the meantime, here are some quick notes on venue. Venue determines the judicial district in which a lawsuit may be filed or commenced. To determine where venue is proper, you must start your analysis by determining whether the first option is satisfied (see below). If the first option is not satisfied, then you move on to the second option. If the second option is not satisfied, then you move on to the third option. FIRST OPTION: If ALL the defendants reside in the same state, venue is proper in a judicial district where ANY defendant resides. SECOND OPTION: If ALL the defendants do NOT reside in the same state, venue is proper in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is located. THIRD OPTION: If there is NO district anywhere in the United States that satisfies the first or second option, venue is proper in a judicial district in which ANY defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. For venue purposes, the rules for determining the defendant’s residence vary depending on the type of party involved: INDIVIDUALS: An individual is deemed to reside in the judicial district where he is domiciled. BUSINESS ENTITIES: A business entity is deemed to reside in any judicial district where the entity is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action in question. FOREIGN DEFENDANTS: A defendant who is NOT a resident of the United States, whether a U.S. citizen or an alien, may be sued in ANY judicial district. I hope this helps!
If the D is essentially at home how is that different from trad'l bases domicile? Answering my own question, is it because say for example it's a corporation but it's not incorporated, principal place of business or HQ in the forum then technically they are not domiciled but if there is a long arm statute and there is for example a manufacturing plant which leads to systematic and continuous minimum contacts then the forum has PJ over the Defendant corporation. Is that correct?
Thank you for your video; I have an question. If we are talking about PJ over individual who is domiciled in the forum state how the analysis should go? because it is a criteria for traditional bases but also for state long-arm statute:general jurisdiction
Question! Wait if the corporation is incorporated and has its PPB in two other states, would those two facts override the minimum contacts for General Jurisdiction? Like let’s say a corporation has its ppb in Delaware and is Inc in Florida, and they have 1b dollars of revenue in California which sums up 5% of their sales…would California have PJ over them?
2 quick questions! 1) In the notes you say general jurisdiction for an individual is based on domicile. I thought you moved to analysis of general jurisdiction after you have determined that the traditional bases (which domicile is a part of) do not apply. 2) Where does stream of commerce fit in to this analysis?
Notably, on a law school final exam or the bar exam, I doubt a significant issue of an essay would involve determining whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is domiciled in the forum state - this would be way too easy. Nonetheless, if you did see this, you would primarily discuss it as a traditional base and then you could briefly mention it again under general jurisdiction as the defendant would be “at home” in the forum state. Essentially, it’s 2 ways to come to the same result (if that makes sense). Stream of commerce falls under your discussion of specific jurisdiction. The issue is whether specific jurisdiction exists when the defendant places a product in the stream of commerce (i.e., is this action in the forum state sufficient to meet the “minimum contacts” test?).
Generally, specific jurisdiction is present if: (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the forum state; and (2) the defendant knew or reasonably should have anticipated that his activities in the forum state made it foreseeable that he may be “hailed into court” there. The idea in World Wide Volkswagen is that foreseeability ALONE cannot establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant. You need both elements: (1) purposeful availment AND (2) forseeability. Thanks for the question - hope this helps!
Would causing an effect within the forum state be a traditional basis under the minimum contacts standard for a district court to exercise PJ over a defendant?
Yes! One is based off of the theory of territoriality as espoused in Pennoyer v. Neff. It is still a viable option, as the modern International Shoe standard did not subplant it.
A state long-arm statute is a statute that allows for a court to obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Minimum contacts is a requirement that is needed to exercise a state long-arm statute. If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that minimum contacts is a part of your long-arm statute analysis.
@@studicata Wouldn't it be the other way around.. how is the minimum contact or the long-arm statute actually acquired? the out-of-state defendant must have some claim in, or has acquired some debt within the territory..
Good question! On a civil procedure analysis, unless the call of question directed otherwise, you would generally want to work through an in personam analysis first (this video). If the plaintiff could not establish in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, then you would move on to quasi in rem and in rem analyses as secondary options for the plaintiff to pursue. Stay tuned! More videos covering this topic and more in Civil Procedure are coming soon.
You cannot be physically present in a state, as the territory is defined by the fictional territorial seas acts.. territory is only the mental construct of the geographical location.. as opposed to the high seas where pirates might also dwell and where the states have no jurisdiction... the high seas.. furthermore under customary international law, all 'sovereign states' are recognised as 'artificial persons' and therefore anything belonging to the state is also artificial.. that includes births and deaths registered in the state and any claims made by any persons within that state.. people have the right to make national claims within that state.. that right is called citizenship.. is comes with obligations.. one requirement is that a person can be adjudicated.. so i think there is more too personal jurisdiction.. it also has to do with territorial jurisdiction?..
Literally, why am I paying for law school when you teach better than any resource recommended, including my professor? Thank you, soo much!
Happy to help!
Bless you and your descendants. I'd fail my Civ Pro exam without you.
@Emily Weber i laughed out loud and thought "I wonder if they mean issue or heirs"
Just as a heads up for anyone watching this in 2022 or beyond, for general personal jurisdiction: even if the contacts with the forum state are continues and systematic, that no longer is something that can provide general PJ! i believe the case that changed that was Daimler (though i could be misremembering). now the only way that a state can have general PJ over a defendant is through the defendant's residency OR the defendant was served in the forum state (though that certainly doesn't mean that the state can't have specific PJ over the defendant). Great video btw, this has been helping me immensely in studying !!!
traditional bases 2:40
state long arm statutes 8:00
general jurisdiction 10:11
specific jurisdiction 13:59
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice 19:17
I’m currently a law student, this video was very similar to how my professor taught this and so helpful for review for my exam!
Awesome. Best of luck on your exam!
This gentlemen you are watching is “The Professor of Law”, What are you talking about lady?
Nick N. Nematian my statement was clear, the way this video describes the subject was similar to the way my civ pro professor taught it. I don’t understand your question or your confusion.
Thank you!
I honestly hope you are making a lot of money at this, because you truly are an excellent teacher.
Thank you for your support!
I literally came to say this exact same thing! He is amazing ❤❤
Currently studying for the bar. Wish I had found this channel sooner! Very helpful!
Did you make it? How was the experience?
Thank you!!! I'm not even a law student yet and I thoroughly enjoyed this lecture. It helps me get a "feel" for the law. Straight up
Awesome! I think this a solid preview for law school. Although, you will likely spend half a semester studying the topics covered here. Fun indeed!
Incredible video. All of a sudden the complex becomes comprehendible. Subscribed!
Thank you, glad it was helpful!
This is the most helpful video ever for the most complicated topic. I wish I could pay you thank you
you can! buy one of his products
This is really helpful. In my first semester 1L.
Your eloquence is undeniable. Thank you so much!
🚨 SUPREME COURT UPDATE: After BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrell (U.S. 2017) (bit.ly/TyrellOpinion ), the "systematic and continuous activity" test referred to in this video from 10:26 to 12:14 has been almost completely eliminated. While the Court leaves the door open for “exceptional” cases, general jurisdiction over corporations (i.e., where the corporation is considered "at home") is mostly likely limited to locations where the corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business (i.e., the two locations where the corporation is considered a citizen). For now, the rest of the analysis covered in this video is mostly the same (i.e., when general jurisdiction is present, the defendant can be sued on any claim even if the claim is unrelated to the defendant’s contact with the forum state.). Stay tuned for an updated personal jurisdiction video!
Studicata should we talk about both on the bar, or only this new rule?
@@nicholauswoltering1335 There is likely no need to discuss the "systematic and continuous activity" test on the bar exam-only the "new" rule. 👍
@@studicata Would it be helpful to at least mention that the Court no longer seeks to determine if the activity of Defendant/corporation is systematic and continuous just so the examiner is aware that I know of the rule change and the new standard of review?
Is there a venue video coming anytime soon?
It might be a little bit. In the meantime, here are some quick notes on venue.
Venue determines the judicial district in which a lawsuit may be filed or
commenced. To determine where venue is proper, you must start your analysis by determining whether the first option is satisfied (see below). If the first option is not satisfied, then you move on to the second option. If the second option is not satisfied, then you move on to the third option.
FIRST OPTION: If ALL the defendants reside in the same state, venue is proper in a judicial district where ANY defendant resides.
SECOND OPTION: If ALL the defendants do NOT reside in the same state, venue is proper in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is located.
THIRD OPTION: If there is NO district anywhere in the United States that satisfies the first or second option, venue is proper in a judicial district in which ANY defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
For venue purposes, the rules for determining the defendant’s residence vary depending on the type of party involved:
INDIVIDUALS: An individual is deemed to reside in the judicial district where he is domiciled.
BUSINESS ENTITIES: A business entity is deemed to reside in any judicial district where the entity is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action in question.
FOREIGN DEFENDANTS: A defendant who is NOT a resident of the United States, whether a U.S. citizen or an alien, may be sued in ANY judicial district.
I hope this helps!
@@studicata Thanks!!
awesome explanation my dude. Thank you kindly.
Love this guy, love him even more at 1.25 speed
You're awesome at this dude.
If the D is essentially at home how is that different from trad'l bases domicile? Answering my own question, is it because say for example it's a corporation but it's not incorporated, principal place of business or HQ in the forum then technically they are not domiciled but if there is a long arm statute and there is for example a manufacturing plant which leads to systematic and continuous minimum contacts then the forum has PJ over the Defendant corporation. Is that correct?
On TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, is it not only applicable to application of specific jurisdiction?
Thanks. Helps with my review for bar.
Thank you for your video; I have an question. If we are talking about PJ over individual who is domiciled in the forum state how the analysis should go? because it is a criteria for traditional bases but also for state long-arm statute:general jurisdiction
Be sure to LIKE his vids!
im gonna sue title IV-D (Child Support) for deprevation of rights under 42 USC 1983. but as a plaintiff learning PJ is very helpful
Great way to explain!!!
Question! Wait if the corporation is incorporated and has its PPB in two other states, would those two facts override the minimum contacts for General Jurisdiction? Like let’s say a corporation has its ppb in Delaware and is Inc in Florida, and they have 1b dollars of revenue in California which sums up 5% of their sales…would California have PJ over them?
Are there any videos regarding the Erie Doctrine?
2 quick questions!
1) In the notes you say general jurisdiction for an individual is based on domicile. I thought you moved to analysis of general jurisdiction after you have determined that the traditional bases (which domicile is a part of) do not apply.
2) Where does stream of commerce fit in to this analysis?
Notably, on a law school final exam or the bar exam, I doubt a significant issue of an essay would involve determining whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is domiciled in the forum state - this would be way too easy. Nonetheless, if you did see this, you would primarily discuss it as a traditional base and then you could briefly mention it again under general jurisdiction as the defendant would be “at home” in the forum state. Essentially, it’s 2 ways to come to the same result (if that makes sense).
Stream of commerce falls under your discussion of specific jurisdiction. The issue is whether specific jurisdiction exists when the defendant places a product in the stream of commerce (i.e., is this action in the forum state sufficient to meet the “minimum contacts” test?).
Does it constitute consent if NJ State is doing business with NY State and can the venue be changed back to NY forum?
The big question is, at what point do the public have the right to violate the privacy of individual human beings?
I thought that World Wide Volkswagen said that foreseeability is not a determining factor?
Generally, specific jurisdiction is present if: (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the forum state; and (2) the defendant knew or reasonably should have anticipated that his activities in the forum state made it foreseeable that he may be “hailed into court” there.
The idea in World Wide Volkswagen is that foreseeability ALONE cannot establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant. You need both elements: (1) purposeful availment AND (2) forseeability.
Thanks for the question - hope this helps!
Would causing an effect within the forum state be a traditional basis under the minimum contacts standard for a district court to exercise PJ over a defendant?
I'm strongly considering joining LEAP, will there be more Civ Pro videos like this as well ? :) Im taking Civ Pro and Property this semester
I used property last semester and found it helpful! Best wishes.
Thank you so much!!!
Great Teacher ! thanks
Thank you-happy to help!
so my professor taught the traditional bases as general jurisdiction, are there any differences between the two?
Yes! One is based off of the theory of territoriality as espoused in Pennoyer v. Neff. It is still a viable option, as the modern International Shoe standard did not subplant it.
How do you petition the court to break jurisdiction and venue?
What if the defendant lives in a different state by the time the court rules on the case? Like in Termination of Parental Rights DCFS cases?
you helped this all CLICK TYSM
Happy to help!
Excellent.
Thank you so much King
isn't minimum contacts test separate from Long Arm Statute test? Like first (a) test under long-arm, then (b) minimum contacts for due process?
A state long-arm statute is a statute that allows for a court to obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Minimum contacts is a requirement that is needed to exercise a state long-arm statute. If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that minimum contacts is a part of your long-arm statute analysis.
@@studicata Wouldn't it be the other way around.. how is the minimum contact or the long-arm statute actually acquired? the out-of-state defendant must have some claim in, or has acquired some debt within the territory..
Well explained
Thanks!
I would love to learn civil procedure with you in a more intimate one-on-one setting
amazing thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do the 3 types of personal jurisdiction: in personam, In rem and Quasi in rem fall into the analysis?
Good question! On a civil procedure analysis, unless the call of question directed otherwise, you would generally want to work through an in personam analysis first (this video). If the plaintiff could not establish in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, then you would move on to quasi in rem and in rem analyses as secondary options for the plaintiff to pursue.
Stay tuned! More videos covering this topic and more in Civil Procedure are coming soon.
You're amazing man, I know Jesus brought me to your channel 🙏... bless you
Ford v. Montana 2021
SOUND CHECK
You cannot be physically present in a state, as the territory is defined by the fictional territorial seas acts.. territory is only the mental construct of the geographical location.. as opposed to the high seas where pirates might also dwell and where the states have no jurisdiction... the high seas.. furthermore under customary international law, all 'sovereign states' are recognised as 'artificial persons' and therefore anything belonging to the state is also artificial.. that includes births and deaths registered in the state and any claims made by any persons within that state.. people have the right to make national claims within that state.. that right is called citizenship.. is comes with obligations.. one requirement is that a person can be adjudicated.. so i think there is more too personal jurisdiction.. it also has to do with territorial jurisdiction?..
Fire
I love you
Explanation doesnt get any better. Period.
中文的视频终于有类似的了！ ruclips.net/video/TRhtbNXRt70/видео.html 长臂管辖也讲的很清楚