Civil Procedure Final Exam with
Complete Solutions
A lawsuit is filed in Oregon state court, and Neff is served personally in California with
process for the Oregon suit. Under Pennoyer, is there jurisdiction? - ANSWER-No
Mitchell learns that Neff is vacationing in Arizona. Mitchell files suit in Arizona state
court, and Neff is served personally with process in Arizona. Under Pennoyer, is there
jurisdiction? - ANSWER-Yes
An International Shoe delivery truck carrying shoes from Missouri to Washington drives
through Colorado, where it hits a Colorado pedestrian. (Note: Companies can be sued
and held liable for their employee's actions, so International Shoe Co. could be sued for
this.) Can Pedestrian sue International Shoe in Colorado? - ANSWER-Yes
An International Shoe delivery truck carrying shoes from Missouri to Washington drives
through Colorado, where it hits a Colorado pedestrian. (Note: Companies can be sued
and held liable for their employee's actions, so International Shoe Co. could be sued for
this.) Could Pedestrian sue International Shoe in Washington? - ANSWER-No
An International Shoe delivery truck carrying shoes from Missouri to Washington drives
through Colorado, where it hits a Colorado pedestrian. (Note: Companies can be sued
and held liable for their employee's actions, so International Shoe Co. could be sued for
this.) Could Pedestrian sue International Shoe in Missouri, where the defendant's
headquarters were located? - ANSWER-Yes
An International Shoe delivery truck carrying shoes from Missouri to Washington drives
through Colorado, where it hits a Colorado pedestrian. (Note: Companies can be sued
and held liable for their employee's actions, so International Shoe Co. could be sued for
this.) International Shoe's headquarters were located in St. Louis, Missouri, very close
to Illinois. Suppose Pedestrian has a vacation home in Illinois and hence thinks it would
be very convenient to litigate in Illinois. Can Pedestrian sue International Shoe in
Illinois? - ANSWER-No
The Supreme Court majority in WWVW ultimately held that it was unconstitutional for
Oklahoma to assert personal jurisdiction over Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagon.
Which of the following best represents the court's ultimate reason for so deciding?
A. Defendants Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagon were not served with process in the
state of Oklahoma.
B. Although defendants Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagon had contacts with
Oklahoma, but they were insufficiently related to the underlying lawsuit.
,C. Defendants Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagon had no contacts with Oklahoma
because the car accident occurring in Oklahoma was actually the contact of the
Robinsons, rather than the defendants.
D. There were insufficient contacts among the parties, the contested transaction, and
the forum State. - ANSWER-C
Justice Brennan, in dissent argued that in analyzing minimum contacts, the court should
consider which of the following?
A. Only the contacts of the plaintiff.
B. The contacts among the parties, the transaction at issue, and the forum state.
C. Contacts that the parties should have foreseen, even if they did not.
D. Only the contacts of the defendant. - ANSWER-C
Mary visited Yosemite State Park in California, where she purchased a mug at the Half
Dome Gift Shop. Half Dome Gift Shop has its only place of business in California. Mary
traveled back to her home state of New Mexico. At home, she poured hot coffee in her
mug and the mug exploded, seriously lacerating her hand. Mary wants to sue Half
Dome Gift Shop in state court in New Mexico. Will a New Mexico state court have
personal jurisdiction over Half Dome Gift Shop in the suit brought by Mary?
A. Yes because their product caused harm in New Mexico.
B. No because it was Mary's unilateral act to take the mug to New Mexico.
C. No because sellers are never amenable to suit outside of the state where their
products are sold.
D. Yes because the contact of the exploding mug occurred in New Mexico and gave
rise to the lawsuit - ANSWER-B
According to the majority in WWVW, defendants should generally be able to structure
their primary conduct in a way that they can reasonably predict where they will be
amenable to suit.
True or False? - ANSWER-True
According to the Supreme Court in Burger King, in a lawsuit over a contract, how does it
affect personal jurisdiction to have included a choice of law clause in that contract?
A. The Court viewed a choice of law clause as having no relevance to the personal
jurisdiction inquiry.
B. The Court viewed a choice of law clause selecting the forum's law as itself a
sufficient contact with the forum to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a
party to the contract.
C. The Court viewed a choice of law clause selecting the forum's law as a contact with
the forum which indicated that the defendant had sought the benefits and protections of
the forum's law.
D. The Court viewed a choice of law clause selecting the forum's law as a consent to
personal jurisdiction in the forum. - ANSWER-C
If you a drafting a contract and want to ensure that any litigation arising from the
contract is held in a particular forum, what kind of contract clause should you include?
, A. Choice of Forum Clause
B. Choice of Law Clause - ANSWER-A
Under the Court's two-prong constitutional test set out in Burger King, if a forum is
extremely reasonable under prong two, then a forum can assert jurisdiction even if the
defendant has no contacts with the forum under the first prong.
True or False? - ANSWER-False
An individual's contract with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish
sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum.
True or False? - ANSWER-False
If a defendant (who has contacts with the forum under the first prong) is able to make a
truly compelling case of unreasonableness, then the unreasonableness prong could
defeat personal jurisdiction in the forum.
True or False? - ANSWER-True
Personal jurisdiction in a forum is always improper if the defendant has never even
been to that forum.
True or False? - ANSWER-False
In the United States, the substantive law applicable to a controversy may not be the law
of the forum--thus a state court in Michigan could apply the law of Florida when
adjudicating a case.
True or False? - ANSWER-True
The defendant OR the plaintiff can remove a case once it becomes clear that the case
is removable.
True or False? - ANSWER-False
The ability of the defendant to remove is directly tied to whether the case as filed by the
plaintiff could have been filed in federal district court as it would have had subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
True or False? - ANSWER-True
Pauline, a citizen of New Hampshire, files a lawsuit against Doran, a citizen of Vermont,
in Vermont state court under state tort law for personal injuries from a car wreck,
seeking $100,000 in damages. Which of the following is true?
A. Doran cannot remove the case because he is a citizen of the state from which
removal is sought.Correct. This is called the in-state defendant rule, and is the one way
in which removal is more narrow than original federal subject matter jurisdiction.
B. Doran cannot remove the case because there is no federal question jurisdiction.
C. Doran can remove the case because there is complete diversity of citizenship.
Complete Solutions
A lawsuit is filed in Oregon state court, and Neff is served personally in California with
process for the Oregon suit. Under Pennoyer, is there jurisdiction? - ANSWER-No
Mitchell learns that Neff is vacationing in Arizona. Mitchell files suit in Arizona state
court, and Neff is served personally with process in Arizona. Under Pennoyer, is there
jurisdiction? - ANSWER-Yes
An International Shoe delivery truck carrying shoes from Missouri to Washington drives
through Colorado, where it hits a Colorado pedestrian. (Note: Companies can be sued
and held liable for their employee's actions, so International Shoe Co. could be sued for
this.) Can Pedestrian sue International Shoe in Colorado? - ANSWER-Yes
An International Shoe delivery truck carrying shoes from Missouri to Washington drives
through Colorado, where it hits a Colorado pedestrian. (Note: Companies can be sued
and held liable for their employee's actions, so International Shoe Co. could be sued for
this.) Could Pedestrian sue International Shoe in Washington? - ANSWER-No
An International Shoe delivery truck carrying shoes from Missouri to Washington drives
through Colorado, where it hits a Colorado pedestrian. (Note: Companies can be sued
and held liable for their employee's actions, so International Shoe Co. could be sued for
this.) Could Pedestrian sue International Shoe in Missouri, where the defendant's
headquarters were located? - ANSWER-Yes
An International Shoe delivery truck carrying shoes from Missouri to Washington drives
through Colorado, where it hits a Colorado pedestrian. (Note: Companies can be sued
and held liable for their employee's actions, so International Shoe Co. could be sued for
this.) International Shoe's headquarters were located in St. Louis, Missouri, very close
to Illinois. Suppose Pedestrian has a vacation home in Illinois and hence thinks it would
be very convenient to litigate in Illinois. Can Pedestrian sue International Shoe in
Illinois? - ANSWER-No
The Supreme Court majority in WWVW ultimately held that it was unconstitutional for
Oklahoma to assert personal jurisdiction over Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagon.
Which of the following best represents the court's ultimate reason for so deciding?
A. Defendants Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagon were not served with process in the
state of Oklahoma.
B. Although defendants Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagon had contacts with
Oklahoma, but they were insufficiently related to the underlying lawsuit.
,C. Defendants Seaway and Worldwide Volkswagon had no contacts with Oklahoma
because the car accident occurring in Oklahoma was actually the contact of the
Robinsons, rather than the defendants.
D. There were insufficient contacts among the parties, the contested transaction, and
the forum State. - ANSWER-C
Justice Brennan, in dissent argued that in analyzing minimum contacts, the court should
consider which of the following?
A. Only the contacts of the plaintiff.
B. The contacts among the parties, the transaction at issue, and the forum state.
C. Contacts that the parties should have foreseen, even if they did not.
D. Only the contacts of the defendant. - ANSWER-C
Mary visited Yosemite State Park in California, where she purchased a mug at the Half
Dome Gift Shop. Half Dome Gift Shop has its only place of business in California. Mary
traveled back to her home state of New Mexico. At home, she poured hot coffee in her
mug and the mug exploded, seriously lacerating her hand. Mary wants to sue Half
Dome Gift Shop in state court in New Mexico. Will a New Mexico state court have
personal jurisdiction over Half Dome Gift Shop in the suit brought by Mary?
A. Yes because their product caused harm in New Mexico.
B. No because it was Mary's unilateral act to take the mug to New Mexico.
C. No because sellers are never amenable to suit outside of the state where their
products are sold.
D. Yes because the contact of the exploding mug occurred in New Mexico and gave
rise to the lawsuit - ANSWER-B
According to the majority in WWVW, defendants should generally be able to structure
their primary conduct in a way that they can reasonably predict where they will be
amenable to suit.
True or False? - ANSWER-True
According to the Supreme Court in Burger King, in a lawsuit over a contract, how does it
affect personal jurisdiction to have included a choice of law clause in that contract?
A. The Court viewed a choice of law clause as having no relevance to the personal
jurisdiction inquiry.
B. The Court viewed a choice of law clause selecting the forum's law as itself a
sufficient contact with the forum to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a
party to the contract.
C. The Court viewed a choice of law clause selecting the forum's law as a contact with
the forum which indicated that the defendant had sought the benefits and protections of
the forum's law.
D. The Court viewed a choice of law clause selecting the forum's law as a consent to
personal jurisdiction in the forum. - ANSWER-C
If you a drafting a contract and want to ensure that any litigation arising from the
contract is held in a particular forum, what kind of contract clause should you include?
, A. Choice of Forum Clause
B. Choice of Law Clause - ANSWER-A
Under the Court's two-prong constitutional test set out in Burger King, if a forum is
extremely reasonable under prong two, then a forum can assert jurisdiction even if the
defendant has no contacts with the forum under the first prong.
True or False? - ANSWER-False
An individual's contract with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish
sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum.
True or False? - ANSWER-False
If a defendant (who has contacts with the forum under the first prong) is able to make a
truly compelling case of unreasonableness, then the unreasonableness prong could
defeat personal jurisdiction in the forum.
True or False? - ANSWER-True
Personal jurisdiction in a forum is always improper if the defendant has never even
been to that forum.
True or False? - ANSWER-False
In the United States, the substantive law applicable to a controversy may not be the law
of the forum--thus a state court in Michigan could apply the law of Florida when
adjudicating a case.
True or False? - ANSWER-True
The defendant OR the plaintiff can remove a case once it becomes clear that the case
is removable.
True or False? - ANSWER-False
The ability of the defendant to remove is directly tied to whether the case as filed by the
plaintiff could have been filed in federal district court as it would have had subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
True or False? - ANSWER-True
Pauline, a citizen of New Hampshire, files a lawsuit against Doran, a citizen of Vermont,
in Vermont state court under state tort law for personal injuries from a car wreck,
seeking $100,000 in damages. Which of the following is true?
A. Doran cannot remove the case because he is a citizen of the state from which
removal is sought.Correct. This is called the in-state defendant rule, and is the one way
in which removal is more narrow than original federal subject matter jurisdiction.
B. Doran cannot remove the case because there is no federal question jurisdiction.
C. Doran can remove the case because there is complete diversity of citizenship.
