100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
Eerder door jou gezocht
CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ: Multiple Choice Questions and Answers - Civil Procedure with complete solutions (Rationale) 100% well enlightened€17,54
In winkelwagen
CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ: Multiple Choice Questions and Answers - Civil Procedure with complete solutions (Rationale) 100% well enlightened
2 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ:
Instelling
CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ:
CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ: Multiple Choice Questions and Answers - Civil Procedure with complete solutions (Rationale) 100% well enlightened
Question 1
6 / 6 pts
While driving in Nevada on his first visit to the state, David's car collided with a car driven by Paula. David is a citizen of California. ...
civpro 1 ii mcq multiple choice questions and answers civil procedure with complete solutions rationale 100 well enlightened
Geschreven voor
CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ:
Alle documenten voor dit vak (2)
Verkoper
Volgen
AMAZONEDUCATER
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ: Multiple Choice Questions and
Answers - Civil Procedure with complete solutions
(Rationale) 100% well enlightened
Question 1
pts
While driving in Nevada on his first visit to the state, David's car collided with a car driven by Paula.
David is a citizen of California. Paula is a citizen of Nevada. Paula sued David in Nevada state court for
the damages to her car and personal injuries incurred in the accident. Is David constitutionally subject to
in personam jurisdiction in Nevada?
a. Yes, the court has specific jurisdiction over David based on his contacts with Nevada.
b. No, David is not subject to in personam jurisdiction based on his single contact with Nevada.
c. No, because there is no nexus between the claim and David's contact with Nevada.
d. Yes, the court has in rem jurisdiction over David based on his contacts with Nevada.
{{Ans- Correct!
A is the best answer because
--David's presence in Nevada is a contact that will support the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over
him in the State of Nevada.
B is incorrect because
--a single contact is sufficient,
--where the contact is related to the claim.
C is incorrect because
--there is a nexus between the claim and David's contact with the state.
--D is incorrect because
--there is no indication that David has any property in the state which would support in rem
jurisdiction.
Question 2
pts
Pistol Co., a New York corporation with its manufacturing plant and executive offices in New Jersey,
makes guns and sells them through distributors in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, which in turn
sell to retailers only in the same three states. While on a hunting trip to Connecticut, Vi c, a resident of
California, buys one of Pistol's guns from a Connecticut retailer. When Vic fires the gun upon his return
,to California, it explodes in his face causing serious injury. If Vic sues Pistol in a California state court for
his injuries, the court
a. Has jurisdiction over Pistol because Pistol is "present" in California.
b. Has jurisdiction over Pistol because Pistol is doing business in California.
c. Has no jurisdiction over Pistol because the gun that exploded got to California as a result of Vic's
actions, and not through any act by Pistol.
d. Has no jurisdiction over Pistol unless another gun owner also brought a Pistol gun into
California.
{{Ans- Correct!
C is the best answer because
-- there is no indication that Pistol put its product into the stream of commerce with any knowledge or
intent that it would reach California. World Wide Volkswagen barred jurisdiction in situations where the
product reaches the state through unilateral activity of the consumer.
A is incorrect because
--there is no indication that the company is present in California, since it does not have any operations
there.
B is incorrect because
--there is no indication Pistol is doing business in California.
D is incorrect because
--even if another gun owner brought a gun into California, that unilateral activity would not be
enough for jurisdiction without some knowledge or intent regarding Pistol products being in the state.
Question 3
pts
Wilma, a resident of Ohio, alleges that she entered into an oral agreement with Fred, a resident of
Montana, one evening when she met him in a bar in Ohio. Pursuant to the deal, Wilma quit her teaching
job to work for Fred in his business in Ohio, in exchange for which Fred agreed to support Wilma for the
rest of her life. Fred visited Ohio occasionally on business, and purchased a condo in Ohio with Wilma,
where Fred sometimes stayed. Fred later stopped supporting Wilma and returned to Montana and
Wilma sued Fred in Ohio to enforce the agreement. Ohio has a Long Arm Statute which subjects
defendants to jurisdiction based upon causing torts within Ohio, entering contracts in Ohio and engaging
in business dealings in Ohio, among other things. Fred challenged the Ohio State Court's jurisdiction
over him. In ruling on the motion, what is the Ohio State Court most likely to find regarding the
application of the Long Arm Statute?
a. The Long Arm Statute applies to allow jurisdiction over Fred based on his tortious conduct in
Ohio.
, b. The Long Arm Statute applies to allow jurisdiction over Fred based on his contract with Wilma.
c. The Long Arm Statute does not allow jurisdiction because Fred's conduct does not relate to his
contacts with the forum.
d. The Long Arm Statute does not allow jurisdiction because Fred's business dealings in Ohio were
only occasional.
{{Ans- Correct!
B is the best answer based on the Burger King case, which held that
--entering into a contract followed by a substantial and continuous relationship sufficed for purposes of
jurisdiction.
A is incorrect because
--the suit is for enforcement of a contract, not based on tortious conduct.
C is incorrect because
--the suit does relate to Fred's contacts with the forum.
D is incorrect because
--of his business Fred has an ongoing business in Ohio for which Wilma worked pursuant to the deal,
and Fred also visited Ohio.
Question 4
pts
Cola Co. is a bottler of soft drinks, located in the state of New York, whose products are distributed
throughout the United States. Pam is a resident of Illinois who was injured when a soda bottle made by
Cola Co. exploded. Cola Co. ships a large quantity of product into the state of Illinois and also advertises
extensively in the state. Pam sued Cola Co. in the State of Illinois. The long arm statute permits service
on out-of-state defendants who commit tortious conduct in the state of Illinois. Cola Co. moved to
dismiss the case due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The court should:
a. Grant the motion, based on an absence of minimum contacts.
b. Grant the motion, based on the absence of purposeful availment.
c. Deny the motion only if Cola Co. owns property within the state of Illinois.
d. Deny the motion, because the court has specific jurisdiction over Cola Co. in Illinois.
{{Ans- Correct!
D is the best answer because
--Cola Co has shipped its product into Illinois and advertised in the state, which will suffice under Asahi,
and the tortious injury occurred in the state.
A is incorrect because
--there is a minimum contact with the state based on the shipment of products and advertising.
B is incorrect because
, --there is purposeful availment based on shipment of product into the state as well as advertising.
C is incorrect, because
-even if Cola Co. does not own any property within the state, there is still personal jurisdiction based
on a stream of commerce theory.
Question 5
pts
Martha lives in Iowa on a farm. Her former business partner Samuel believes that Martha owes him
money based on a failed business venture in Delaware. Samuel sued Martha in Iowa, and had her served
with the suit while she was in the Hamptons in New York visiting family and friends. Do the Iowa courts
have personal jurisdiction over Martha?
a. Yes, because Martha lives in Iowa.
b. Yes, but only if Martha's contacts with Iowa somehow relate to the claim.
c. No, because she was not served in Iowa.
d. No, because the venture was in Delaware.
{{Ans- Correct!
A is the best answer because
--a court has personal jurisdiction over a party where
--a party is present in the state based on their domicile, and
--Martha is present in Iowa because
--she lives there on a farm, so that
--Iowa is her domicile.
B is incorrect because
--where a person is present, the court has jurisdiction over the person based on presence and analysis
of contacts and their relationship to the claim is irrelevant.
C is incorrect because
--it does not matter where a party is served, if the party is present in the state as Martha is here, the
court will have personal jurisdiction.
D is incorrect because
--it does not matter where the venture occurred, and
--the court will have jurisdiction based on the party's presence.
Quiz Score: 30 out of 30--
Question 1
Over which of the following defendants does the court most likely have personal jurisdiction, assuming
those defendants have no other contacts with the forum state?
I. A defendant served with process during a layover in the forum state.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper AMAZONEDUCATER. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €17,54. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
