CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ: Multiple Choice Questions and Answers - Civil Procedure with complete solutions (Rationale) 100% well enlightened

Document Content and Description Below

CIVPRO 1 / II MCQ: Multiple Choice Questions and Answers - Civil Procedure with complete solutions (Rationale) 100% well enlightened Question 1 6 / 6 pts While driving in Nevada on his first visi... t to the state, David's car collided with a car driven by Paula. David is a citizen of California. Paula is a citizen of Nevada. Paula sued David in Nevada state court for the damages to her car and personal injuries incurred in the accident. Is David constitutionally subject to in personam jurisdiction in Nevada? a. Yes, the court has specific jurisdiction over David based on his contacts with Nevada. b. No, David is not subject to in personam jurisdiction based on his single contact with Nevada. c. No, because there is no nexus between the claim and David's contact with Nevada. d. Yes, the court has in rem jurisdiction over David based on his contacts with Nevada. {{Ans- Correct! A is the best answer because --David's presence in Nevada is a contact that will support the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over him in the State of Nevada. B is incorrect because --a single contact is sufficient, --where the contact is related to the claim. C is incorrect because --there is a nexus between the claim and David's contact with the state. --D is incorrect because --there is no indication that David has any property in the state which would support in rem jurisdiction. Question 2 6 / 6 pts Pistol Co., a New York corporation with its manufacturing plant and executive offices in New Jersey, makes guns and sells them through distributors in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, which in turn sell to retailers only in the same three states. While on a hunting trip to Connecticut, Vic, a resident of California, buys one of Pistol's guns from a Connecticut retailer. When Vic fires the gun upon his return to California, it explodes in his face causing serious injury. If Vic sues Pistol in a California state court for his injuries, the court a. Has jurisdiction over Pistol because Pistol is "present" in California. b. Has jurisdiction over Pistol because Pistol is doing business in California. c. Has no jurisdiction over Pistol because the gun that exploded got to California as a result of Vic's actions, and not through any act by Pistol. d. Has no jurisdiction over Pistol unless another gun owner also brought a Pistol gun into California. {{Ans- Correct! C is the best answer because -- there is no indication that Pistol put its product into the stream of commerce with any knowledge or intent that it would reach California. World Wide Volkswagen barred jurisdiction in situations where the product reaches the state through unilateral activity of the consumer. A is incorrect because --there is no indication that the company is present in California, since it does not have any operations there. B is incorrect because --there is no indication Pistol is doing business in California. D is incorrect because --even if another gun owner brought a gun into California, that unilateral activity would not be enough for jurisdiction without some knowledge or intent regarding Pistol products being in the state. Question 3 6 / 6 pts Wilma, a resident of Ohio, alleges that she entered into an oral agreement with Fred, a resident of Montana, one evening when she met him in a bar in Ohio. Pursuant to the deal, Wilma quit her teaching job to work for Fred in his business in Ohio, in exchange for which Fred agreed to support Wilma for the rest of her life. Fred visited Ohio occasionally on business, and purchased a condo in Ohio with Wilma, where Fred sometimes stayed. Fred later stopped supporting Wilma and returned to Montana and Wilma sued Fred in Ohio to enforce the agreement. Ohio has a Long Arm Statute which subjects defendants to jurisdiction based upon causing torts within Ohio, entering contracts in Ohio and engaging in business dealings in Ohio, among other things. Fred challenged the Ohio State Court's jurisdiction over him. In ruling on the motion, what is the Ohio State Court most likely to find regarding the application of the Long Arm Statute? a. The Long Arm Statute applies to allow jurisdiction over Fred based on his tortious conduct in Ohio. b. The Long Arm Statute applies to allow jurisdiction over Fred based on his contract with Wilma. c. The Long Arm Statute does not allow jurisdiction because Fred's conduct does not relate to his contacts with the forum. d. The Long Arm Statute does not allow jurisdiction because Fred's business dealings in Ohio were only occasional. {{Ans- Correct! B is the best answer based on the Burger King case, which held that --entering into a contract followed by a substantial and continuous relationship sufficed for purposes of jurisdiction. A is incorrect because --the suit is for enforcement of a contract, not based on tortious conduct. C is incorrect because --the suit does relate to Fred's contacts with the forum. D is incorrect because --of his business Fred has an ongoing business in Ohio for which Wilma worked pursuant to the deal, and Fred also visited Ohio. Question 4 6 / 6 pts Cola Co. is a bottler of soft drinks, located in the state of New York, whose products are distributed throughout the United States. Pam is a resident of Illinois who was injured when a soda bottle made by Cola Co. exploded. Cola Co. ships a large quantity of product into the state of Illinois and also advertises extensively in the state. Pam sued Cola Co. in the State of Illinois. The long arm statute permits service on out-of-state defendants who commit tortious conduct in the state of Illinois. Cola Co. moved to dismiss the case due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The court should: a. Grant the motion, based on an absence of minimum contacts. b. Grant the motion, based on the absence of purposeful availment. c. Deny the motion only if Cola Co. owns property within the state of Illinois. d. Deny the motion, because the court has specific jurisdiction over Cola Co. in Illinois. {{Ans- Correct! D is the best answer because --Cola Co has shipped its product into Illinois and advertised in the state, which will suffice under Asahi, and the tortious injury occurred in the state. A is incorrect because --there is a minimum contact with the state based on the shipment of products and advertising. B is incorrect because --there is purposeful availment based on shipment of product into the state as well as advertising. C is incorrect, because -even if Cola Co. does not own any property within the state, there is still personal jurisdiction based on a stream of commerce theory. Question 5 6 / 6 pts Martha lives in Iowa on a farm. Her former business partner Samuel believes that Martha owes him money based on a failed business venture in Delaware. Samuel sued Martha in Iowa, and had her served with the suit while she was in the Hamptons in New York visiting family and friends. Do the Iowa courts have personal jurisdiction over Martha? a. Yes, because Martha lives in Iowa. b. Yes, but only if Martha's contacts with Iowa somehow relate to the claim. c. No, because she was not served in Iowa. d. No, because the venture was in Delaware. {{Ans- Correct! A is the best answer because --a court has personal jurisdiction over a party where --a party is present in the state based on their domicile, and --Martha is present in Iowa because --she lives there on a farm, so that --Iowa is her domicile. B is incorrect because --where a person is present, the court has jurisdiction over the person based on presence and analysis of contacts and their relationship to the claim is irrelevant. C is incorrect because --it does not matter where a party is served, if the party is present in the state as Martha is here, the court will have personal jurisdiction. D is incorrect because --it does not matter where the venture occurred, and --the court will have jurisdiction based on the party's presence. Question 1 Over which of the following defendants does the court most likely have personal jurisdiction, assuming those defendants have no other contacts with the forum state? I. A defendant served with process during a layover in the forum state. II. A person served with process after they mistakenly crossed into the forum state while lost. a. Both I and II. b. I only. c. II only. d. None of the above. {{Ans- B is the best answer because --a court will likely have personal jurisdiction over a person who is --voluntarily and knowingly present in the state, --which likely must be intentional, and --is less likely to have personal jurisdiction over a person mistakenly in the state. So A and C are incorrect. D is incorrect because I is correct. [Show More]

Last updated: 2 years ago

Preview 1 out of 68 pages