Chapter 02 – The Resolution of Private Disputes
2-3
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Points for Discussion: Note the court’s discussion of specific jurisdiction:
jurisdiction over a defendant in a case arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts
with the forum. Emphasize that such jurisdiction can be acquired by a court over a
single due process inquiry in which the “minimum contacts” issue becomes critical. Ask
the students why the court concluded that the defendants did not possess the requisite
minimum contacts with Nebraska. Ask about the court’s discussion of the Zippo test for
whether a defendant’s website will or may support a determination that a state’s court has
determinative. Ask about what the court also considered important in determining
whether the defendants possessed the necessary minimum contacts: whether the
f. The Global Business Environment box at p. 33 deals with Daimler AG v. Bauman, a
2014 Supreme Court decision dealing with whether the U.S. District Court for the
g. For further examples of long-arm statute-related issues and due process concerns, see
Problems #3, #7, and #10.
h. Explain the difference between in personam jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction.
i. Although the text mentions it only in a footnote, you might want to discuss quasi-in–
rem or “attachment” jurisdiction, which (along with subject-matter jurisdiction) also
debt, but Y is outside the in personam jurisdiction of X’s state. Suppose also that Z
owes Y a debt, and Z comes into X’s state. X may get quasi in rem jurisdiction over Y
based.