Wednesday audio. No class on Monday. Essay VII posted on Friday, due next Wednesday.
We continue where we left off--what is the problem for X in moving for personal jurisdiction in state court first, rather than removing?
Prepare all of Modern Approach and General Jurisdiction Revisited.
How did the WW Court turn the "certain minimum contacts" standard of Shoe
into a constitutional test and what are the pieces of that
constitutional test? How did Burger King tweak the connection between those strands? What is purposeful availment and how does it relate
to minimum contacts? What might the defendant do to personally avail under the cases? Review the facts of Hess and be ready to discuss how that case would be resolved under the modern Shoe framework (as opposed to the legal fiction the Court relied on under Pennoyer).
Reconsider the distinction between specific and general jurisdiction and
what each requires. When is a defendant subject to general jurisdiction?
When dealing with specific jurisdiction, what additional question must
we now ask with respect to the constitutional test?