CIV 3701 EXAMINATION QUESTIONS WITH A GRADED
ANSWERS LATEST 2026 EDITION
Angry Fireworks Corp. was incorporated in Delaware and, for many years, had its sole factory in
Missouri. It sold fireworks
to passing motorists along a busy Missouri highway. One summer, as they were traveling past the
Angry Fireworks Co. factory, Parents stopped and purchased a set of fireworks to entertain their
children. That same summer, Parents set off the fireworks near their home in Oklahoma, causing
tragic injuries to their entire family. Parents hoped to sue Angry Fireworks Corp. in an Oklahoma
court.
The U.S. Constitution would most likely permit Oklahoma to exercise general personal jurisdiction
over Angry Fireworks Corp. if which of the following were true?
A. A steady flow of fireworks manufactured by Angry Fireworks Corp. make their way into Oklahoma
each year.
B. Angry Fireworks Corp. is now operating, but just temporarily, out of leased warehouse space in
Oklahoma while its existing factory is being refurbished.
C. At regular intervals throughout each year, Angry Fireworks Corp. purchased telephone equipment
for its manufacturing factory from Oklahoma vendors.
D. Angry Fireworks Corp. earns sizable volumes of income each year from fireworks sales to Oklahoma
citizens.
B. Angry Fireworks Corp. is now operating, but just temporarily, out of leased warehouse space in
Oklahoma while its existing factory is being refurbished.
Answer (B) is the best choice: In its "textbook" case of general personal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court
ruled that Ohio could exercise general jurisdiction over a Philippine mining company that had moved its
offices and files to Ohio during the Japanese occupation of the Islands during WWII. See Perkins v.
Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952). General jurisdiction was proper in that instance, the
Court explained later, because "Ohio was the corporation's principal, if temporary, place of business."
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 780 n.11 (1984).
A Chinese company manufactured hoverboards. It entered into a contract with and American
distribution company to sell the hoverboards in State A, which had many colleges with students that
the manufacturer thought would be receptive to hoverboards.
A college student, attending college in State A, bought a hoverboard manufactured by the Chinese
company after seeing advertisements in the college's newspaper placed by the distributor. The
student then transferred to another college in State B. While the student was at college in State B, the
hoverboard subsequently caught on fire in the student's dormitory room, injuring the student and
destroying some of his personal property. The student filed suit in federal court in State B, naming the
Chinese manufacturer and the U.S. distributor as defendants. Both the manufacturer and the
, distributor filed motions challenging personal jurisdiction, submitting affidavits asserting that neither
defendant had any employees or property in State B, placed advertising in State B, or had made sales
in State B. The student responded that specific jurisdiction was appropriate because the harm had
occurred in State B.
Will the defendants likely succeed in their challenge to personal jurisdiction?
A. Neither defendant will likely succeed.
B. The manufacturer will likely succeed but the distributor will likely not succeed.
C. The distributor will likely succeed but the manufacturer will likely not succeed.
D. Both defendants will likely succeed.
D. Both defendants will likely succeed.
Answer (D) is the best choice: In order for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant to
satisfy Constitutional Due Process, the defendant must have purposely availed itself of the laws of the
forum state. Likewise, the defendant must be able to foresee being haled into court in the forum state—
the mere fact that the product can easily be transported to the forum state is not sufficient. See
WorldWide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). Here, neither defendant took any
actions to target consumers in State B or to avail themselves of the laws of State B, nor could they have
readily foreseen being sued in State B. Accordingly, the defendants' motion will likely succeed.
Restaurant LLC is a limited liability company that owned and operated an Italian restaurant in San
Antonio, Texas. This San Antonio eatery was the LLC's sole asset, and all managers and employees are
Texas citizens. The LLC was, in turn, owned jointly by two people (one who was a citizen of Texas and
the second who was a citizen of Louisiana) and a corporation (which was incorporated in Delaware
and had its principal place of business in Texas). When business slowed at the Italian restaurant, the
LLC had financial difficulties. Several months later, Pasta Co. sued the LLC in federal district court in
Texas for $75,000 in unpaid invoices. Pasta Co. was incorporated in California with a principal place of
business in Oregon.
Can the federal district court in Texas exercise diversity jurisdiction over Restaurant LLC in this
dispute?
A. Yes, because Restaurant LLC is a citizen of Texas, and Pasta Co. is a citizen of both California and
Oregon.
B. Yes, because Restaurant LLC is a citizen of Texas, Louisiana, and Delaware, and Pasta Co. is a citizen
of both California and Oregon.
C. Yes, if Restaurant LLC was organized under the laws of a State other than California and Oregon.
D. No.
ANSWERS LATEST 2026 EDITION
Angry Fireworks Corp. was incorporated in Delaware and, for many years, had its sole factory in
Missouri. It sold fireworks
to passing motorists along a busy Missouri highway. One summer, as they were traveling past the
Angry Fireworks Co. factory, Parents stopped and purchased a set of fireworks to entertain their
children. That same summer, Parents set off the fireworks near their home in Oklahoma, causing
tragic injuries to their entire family. Parents hoped to sue Angry Fireworks Corp. in an Oklahoma
court.
The U.S. Constitution would most likely permit Oklahoma to exercise general personal jurisdiction
over Angry Fireworks Corp. if which of the following were true?
A. A steady flow of fireworks manufactured by Angry Fireworks Corp. make their way into Oklahoma
each year.
B. Angry Fireworks Corp. is now operating, but just temporarily, out of leased warehouse space in
Oklahoma while its existing factory is being refurbished.
C. At regular intervals throughout each year, Angry Fireworks Corp. purchased telephone equipment
for its manufacturing factory from Oklahoma vendors.
D. Angry Fireworks Corp. earns sizable volumes of income each year from fireworks sales to Oklahoma
citizens.
B. Angry Fireworks Corp. is now operating, but just temporarily, out of leased warehouse space in
Oklahoma while its existing factory is being refurbished.
Answer (B) is the best choice: In its "textbook" case of general personal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court
ruled that Ohio could exercise general jurisdiction over a Philippine mining company that had moved its
offices and files to Ohio during the Japanese occupation of the Islands during WWII. See Perkins v.
Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952). General jurisdiction was proper in that instance, the
Court explained later, because "Ohio was the corporation's principal, if temporary, place of business."
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 780 n.11 (1984).
A Chinese company manufactured hoverboards. It entered into a contract with and American
distribution company to sell the hoverboards in State A, which had many colleges with students that
the manufacturer thought would be receptive to hoverboards.
A college student, attending college in State A, bought a hoverboard manufactured by the Chinese
company after seeing advertisements in the college's newspaper placed by the distributor. The
student then transferred to another college in State B. While the student was at college in State B, the
hoverboard subsequently caught on fire in the student's dormitory room, injuring the student and
destroying some of his personal property. The student filed suit in federal court in State B, naming the
Chinese manufacturer and the U.S. distributor as defendants. Both the manufacturer and the
, distributor filed motions challenging personal jurisdiction, submitting affidavits asserting that neither
defendant had any employees or property in State B, placed advertising in State B, or had made sales
in State B. The student responded that specific jurisdiction was appropriate because the harm had
occurred in State B.
Will the defendants likely succeed in their challenge to personal jurisdiction?
A. Neither defendant will likely succeed.
B. The manufacturer will likely succeed but the distributor will likely not succeed.
C. The distributor will likely succeed but the manufacturer will likely not succeed.
D. Both defendants will likely succeed.
D. Both defendants will likely succeed.
Answer (D) is the best choice: In order for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant to
satisfy Constitutional Due Process, the defendant must have purposely availed itself of the laws of the
forum state. Likewise, the defendant must be able to foresee being haled into court in the forum state—
the mere fact that the product can easily be transported to the forum state is not sufficient. See
WorldWide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). Here, neither defendant took any
actions to target consumers in State B or to avail themselves of the laws of State B, nor could they have
readily foreseen being sued in State B. Accordingly, the defendants' motion will likely succeed.
Restaurant LLC is a limited liability company that owned and operated an Italian restaurant in San
Antonio, Texas. This San Antonio eatery was the LLC's sole asset, and all managers and employees are
Texas citizens. The LLC was, in turn, owned jointly by two people (one who was a citizen of Texas and
the second who was a citizen of Louisiana) and a corporation (which was incorporated in Delaware
and had its principal place of business in Texas). When business slowed at the Italian restaurant, the
LLC had financial difficulties. Several months later, Pasta Co. sued the LLC in federal district court in
Texas for $75,000 in unpaid invoices. Pasta Co. was incorporated in California with a principal place of
business in Oregon.
Can the federal district court in Texas exercise diversity jurisdiction over Restaurant LLC in this
dispute?
A. Yes, because Restaurant LLC is a citizen of Texas, and Pasta Co. is a citizen of both California and
Oregon.
B. Yes, because Restaurant LLC is a citizen of Texas, Louisiana, and Delaware, and Pasta Co. is a citizen
of both California and Oregon.
C. Yes, if Restaurant LLC was organized under the laws of a State other than California and Oregon.
D. No.
