Allstate Insurance Company V.

FACTS -- Subsequent to a failed attempt from the plaintiff to appeal and receive the right to a trial, Harold Caldwell filed a bill of review for a case that was decided with his absence due to a dearth of convenient notification. The contrasting party, Robert Barnes, declared that he hired private process server DeWayne Perdew, to deliver the summon to Caldwell and that the decision made by the lower courts is correct. The decision of lower courts was made during a pretrial hearing, denying Caldwell a trial.

The Plaintiffs, Garetsons, own a well in Haskell County, which they use for irrigation pursuant to a vested water right. The Defendant, American Warrior Inc. (AWI), owns two nearby wells with junior water appropriation rights. Garetsons sued AWI requesting an injunction to prevent AWI from pumping groundwater. The District Court found that AWI’s wells were causing significant impairment and drawdown of the Garetsons’ water rights. As a result, tThe District Court granted an

In West Corp. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1167 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004), a California resident, Patricia Sanford, filed a class action complaint against West Corporation and WTC (a subsidiary of West Corp.), telemarketing firms organized in Delaware and headquartered in Nebraska, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the consumers legal remedies act; (2) unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices; (3) untrue and/or dishonest advertising; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud and deceit; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. Essentially, one of West’s telemarketers had misrepresented a product during a sales pitch in which the caller (Sanford) had purchased the product over the phone. West claims that the California court could not assert personal jurisdiction over them because they did not maintain any offices or employees in California, was not licensed to do business in California, nor did they own any property located in California. Moreover, West motioned the court to quash the service of summons; however, the court denied the request and ruled that the court was authorized to assert personal jurisdiction over their corporation.

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.

A forum applies its own choice of law approach. So here North Montana will apply the Second Restatement of Conflicts of Laws as the state follows that approach. Under the Second Restatement, three main steps need to be considered: 1) whether the conflict is procedural or substantive, 2) whether a choice of law provision in a contract should be applied, and 3) the application of a choice of law rule. Here, it appears that the choice of law provision selecting Old York should be applied because none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.

Minimum contact establishes an appropriateness for one state to assert its jurisdiction on a person or business in another state. When evaluating the facts of the case presented, it

To meet the requirements of due process the defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum state so that it “does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”. The court also stated that having a website alone does not give rise to personal jurisdiction.

An appropriate basis exists for service of process outside of this state upon a person or entity in any action in this state when the person or entity has such contacts with this state that the prosecution of the action against the person or entity in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States.

The state has not yet resolved the suit, but that aside, it’s worthwhile to evaluate the larger implication. From the state’s actions, we can deduce two things: 1. The state

Reasoning: Determining jurisdiction is critical because jurisdiction not only allows the party to know whether that court is entitled to adjudicate a dispute, but it can also help determine which laws are applicable, which can make a difference in a party's recovery. For example, Georgia and Delaware might have different laws regarding damages so that Elle may have an advantage in one court as compared to another court. In order for a court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the court must have some connection to either the parties or to the event in question. Therefore, the possibilities for jurisdiction include: the district court for the state of Georgia, the district court for the state of Delaware, or one of the state courts for either Georgia or Delaware. In order for federal jurisdiction to apply, the circumstances of the case must meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to that federal court jurisdiction involved when the parties involved are from two

The Internet world that e-commerce ventures have multiplied tremendously bringing forth cross-border Internet disputes. Such cases require us to consider the scope of the federal court’s power of jurisdiction in a new context. CompuServe, a computer network giant, appealed the dismissal to the federal court, for lack of personal jurisdiction, of its complaint in which it judgement that it had not infringed on the defendant’s common law copyrights and engaged in unfair competition. The district court held that the electronic links between the defendant, who lived in Texas, and Ohio, where CompuServe is located, were not enough to support personal jurisdiction. The district court also denied CompuServe’s motion for reconsideration. Because The Court of Appeals believed, that CompuServe made a display of prima facie that the defendants contacts were substantial enough to support the exercise pf personal jurisdiction, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remand that the case for further proceedings.

The applicability of the essential facility doctrine in (MCI Commc'ns Corp. v. AT&T), 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 (1983).??