Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS

    (A) Yes, because by hiring Jones to solicit orders from Arkansas-based stores, Dressco has purposely availed itself of the opportunity to do business in Arkansas.

    (B) No, because Dressco’s connections with Arkansas were too small to constitute the minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction by the due process clause.

    (C) Yes, because Dressco shipped goods to the plaintiff in Arkansas.

    (D) No, because Dressco is not incorporated in Arkansas and does not have its principal place of business there.

    5.           Dennis owns a corporation, D-Goods Inc., whose sole function is the operation of a women’s leather-goods store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Until 2010, Dennis bought all of his goods for D-Goods from an Oklahoma-based jobber. But in 2010, Dennis decided to travel to New York City’s leather district to see what goods he could buy there. On behalf of the business, he purchased $10,000 of merchandise in New York, then flew back to Tulsa. Two months later, while on company business in Pennsylvania, Dennis collided with a car driven by Paul, a New York resident. Paul sued Dennis in New York state court. Except for the buying trip, neither Dennis nor D-Goods has ever conducted any activities connected with New York. May the New York courts properly take jurisdiction over D-Goods for purposes of this negligence suit?

    (A) Yes, because by Dennis’ travelling to New York and purchasing business merchandise there, D-Goods purposely availed itself of the opportunity to do business in New York.

    (B) No, because D-Goods is not incorporated in New York, and does not have its principal place of business there.

    (C) Yes, because the New York courts have a constitutionally-sufficient interest in furnishing a local forum for redress of personal injuries suffered by New York residents.

    (D) No, because the gap in time between D-Goods’ New York activities and the accident was too long.

    6.           Toyco is a toy manufacturer whose sole office is located in New York. Penny is a young Florida citizen who claims to have been seriously injured in Florida by a toy made by Toyco in New York and shipped to a store in Florida, from which Penny’s mother bought it. Penny has brought a diversity action against Toyco, based on strict product liability, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. Assume that if the action had been brought in the Florida state courts, no Florida statute would have authorized the Florida courts to take jurisdiction over a tort action by Penny against Toyco. In the federal action, Penny caused a licensed process server to travel to New York, where the process server visited Toyco’s headquarters, and personally handed the summons and complaint to Toyco’s president. Does the federal court for the Southern District of Florida now have personal jurisdiction over Toyco?

    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following