Review of personal jurisdiction
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2024
- Review of personal jurisdiction: specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction
UPDATE: On January 14, 2014, the Supreme Court issued Daimler AG v. Bauman, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/.... This opinion somewhat changes the analysis of general jurisdiction that is included in this video. The Court affirmed Goodyear’s standard that general jurisdiction should not be exercised over a foreign corporation unless its “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” It went a bit further than Goodyear, though, and implied that it would be difficult to show that a corporation was “at home in the forum State” unless it was incorporated or had its principal place of business in the State. In footnote 19, the Court held that possibility open for “an exceptional case”: “We do not foreclose the possibility that in an exceptional case, see, e.g., Perkins, described supra, at 10-12, and n. 8, a corporation’s operations in a forum other than its formal place of incorporation or principal place of business may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State. But this case presents no occasion to explore that question, because Daimler’s activities in California plainly do not approach that level.”
Also, given the Court’s indication that “general jurisdiction” would mainly apply to states in which the corporation was incorporated or had its principal place of business, the Court stated that the five “fairness and reasonableness” factors from World-Wide Volkswagen would not apply to the due process analysis of general jurisdiction.
Then, on February 25, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Walden v. Fiore, No. 12-574, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/.... This case is another example of a due process analysis of specific jurisdiction in the context of an intentional tort (here, an alleged civil rights violation). It does not fundamentally change (I don’t think) the analysis in this video. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Hello Professor Moore. I so appreciate you posted his video. I am a distance-ed law student and really needed this clarification. So many would disagree that you have posted this here and for various reasons: but I am glad you did nonetheless. God Bless-Klnisha
These videos are so helpful! Wish you had them on every subject in Civ Pro. Thank you!
Love love love the videos!!! Thank you thnak you so much!!! Learn everyday!
You should define "person" and how a statute would apply to men/women as defendant who have not violated anyones rights or caused injury.
So I'm guessing that she's trying to tell us the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion supersedes the Constitution of America? In that case, whats the point of having or abiding by the Constitution
As the Supreme Court said over 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), at 177 -- 178:
"...If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each...."
However, that doesn't answer who decides whether a law is unconstitutional. And it isn't you. Your opinion on the question is meaningless; no one cares what you think. So who does decide? The Founding Fathers in the Constitution assign the authority to decide questions regarding the meaning and application of the Constitution to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
"Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....
Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..."
Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and understood what judicial power (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/judicial-power# ) was. In fact, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers: and of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.
The Supreme Court has also ruled (see Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827) and U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)) that a statute is presumed constitutional and is valid and enforceable unless/until it is found unconstitutional by a proper court.
BAR Members will be held liable for crimes against humanity
Thank you Prof. Moore. Can you do an update video? Although it really hasn't changed, an update would keep the subject going. Unfortunately, this isn't taught to the masses, but is nonetheless priceless. Thank you.
This is a very well made video, thanks for posting it on youtube
Thank you! Appreciate the comment!
Mrs Patricia,
I have a question...
I'm pro se in a federal lawsuit against sheriff's, and this case has snowballed into me being targeted by law enforcement over state traffic and safety laws leading to arrest and future lawsuits.
For example, in one traffic stop my out of state plate wasn't tagged, but I couldn't get compliant with the state DMV because another state agency unlawfully placed a lien on me for child support, title 4d is not law, but voluntary and I was threaten will arrest if I didn't sign the child support agreement, which I didn't sign because I already pay child support and partake in my children's lives.
Because I've done this just moving to the state I wasn't allowed a driver's license and vehicle registration...
Since a mere traffic stop becomes criminal where I'm arrested. One stop my plate was taken off my vehicle and the very next day stopped and I immediately said I remain silent and at this time do not self incriminate, I hand the officer my attorneys card which explains not to speak with her client that she shall be called 24 7 on any matter,
The officer refused to take my card, he calls back up and I'm arrested for exercising a right... The reason was for no license plate... Both nothing that falls under damages of a CRIME I apparently committed.
So my question is, Article 6 clause 2 guarantees the supremacy clause against the state law made that conflicts with previous protected rights, it's my claim state actors are using state law to violated my civil rights of due process and unlawful search and seizure, including false imprisonment.
The states jurisdiction consist of a state employee magistrate judge, state employee prosecutor, State employee plaintiff in law enforcement, the jurisdiction doesn't allow counter suits, and the operation of the state has a conflict of interest of actual law where the Constitution isn't used in the court.
Also the state magistrate judge holds article 1 hearings and oaths, they do not hold article 3 oaths or rulings, so my question is, the Constitution and the district Court would have jurisdiction over these cases under title 42 USC 1983 in their individual capacity correct?
It's my argument that how can I follow state law if the state disqualified me from being compliant,
A driver's license I understand by law is a contract with the state, that my mere refusal to get complaint of a contract would violate my rights, I shouldn't be arrested for nor lose property or be labeled a criminal where I've committed no crime, the state actors are manipulating state law over my Constitution protections...
How does state jurisdiction Trump Constitution Patricia?
How am I wrong driving coast to coast to be near my kids, land myself on live PD tv show, arrested multiple times, 3 times in a 12 day period, and I've never been convicted of anything whatsoever...
I would love your response, I grew up inner city ward of the state, gangs drugs murder, but I made it out because my desire to learn, I'm very ignorant of law, but further along than most, this question is something that just crumbles what I learned about the Constitution and rights, because it doesn't seem Constitution means anything anymore...
The statute applies becuase the statute said so right YOU are on your oath today right professor can you honestly answer THAT
great job!
I live in Wa state in March my estranged wife served me with a restraining order in Utah and the alleged event happened in Washington yet went to court in Utah and now have a 2 year order against me
Notice how she mentions the constitution and due process
where has everyone drawn the conclusion that States have broad subject matter jurisdiction? The same provision if the US Constitution that limits the Federal Judiciary's jurisdiction, Amendment x, also limits the jurisdiction of the States "respectively" and reserves to, for and by the People jurisdiction over that which has not been explicitly delegated to either the Federal or their respective State governments. Neither the Federal government, nor State government. have the power to decide which of the People's sovereign powers must be delegated to government and which may be retained by the People. In so doing, a State ceases to be a Republic.
What's the "Burger King" case?
bk v rudzewics
Interesting .........
The "act" or acting of a fairy tale character called a "defendant". I really don't do acting nor am I a fairy tale character. 👈👀🧐 Nor do I understand the jurisdiction and or authority of the corporate special maritime jurisdiction because I am a natural living man from the texas republic with un-a-lien-able rights as protected by the Constitution for the united States.
And to top it off, you're an idiot.
@@Colgate64, "top it off" 😆 what are you doing? Putting the icing on a cake? 😆 owwwe I'm an "idiot". My feelings! I'm a sensitive "person" 😆 I swear some people are lame as f**k bro.
@@lorenzolenchorodriguezjr4746 None are so lame as those who don't understand a thing about the legal system and pretand that they do.
@@Colgate64 , you stay right where you're at and stay understanding all that leven filled tacit agreement crapola special maritime jurisdiction and proven to be a fraud by non disclosure and deception. I'll stay overstanding as a king, grantor, Inhabitant on the land commonly known as the texas republic and American National. You can stay in phatasia where u can "do as thy will" and then suffer probably the worst consequences u can't even begin to imagine. Hey you submissive Citizen subject of the territorial and jurisdiction of the United States Corporation aka Washington DC which most people don't realize is actually foreign to the several states landmasses, the republic established by We the People. Later debtor
There is no such thing. As you'll discover the day you get ticketed.
She states the due process PART of it come on professor you can do better than I hope
or You all can grow up and act as Man. Who does not require another Man to tell him what his constitution should be, there for maintaining Man's Authority over Government, Effectively establishing original God Given Freedom and eliminating ALL jurismydicktion crap all together.
Brilliant legal analysis. I'm surprised the Supreme Court hasn't taken it up.
Leave and tuck in a private trust moving to the free-est state constitutions or another country’s state constitution. They’re losing grip and will face Nuremberg Style Trials in every community around the world and lose those secret trusts. 😂
Smart women is hard to fine are you married
I live in Wa state in March my estranged wife served me with a restraining order in Utah and the alleged event happened in Washington yet went to court in Utah and now have a 2 year order against me
Goraiders75
Challenge it. Send a motion to dismiss