Civil Procedure was funny today. I suspect it has something to do with Professor V realizing that our massive memo was due this morning.

We continued our Personal Jurisdiction discussion with Helicopteros¹:

Professor V: “The Supreme Court says, somewhat unhelpfully, that “whatever the standard is, it’s not met.”

Professor V’s trickery:

Professor V: “Would there be specific jurisdiction in Texas for a Third Party Complaint?”
Jill: “Well your note told us to look at the Rosenberg case…”
Professor V: “Was that helpful or misleading?”
Jill: “Well I thought it was helpful but maybe I was misled!”

The Plaintiffs argued² that cashing a check from Texas could serve as a basis for personal jurisdiction:

Professor V: “It’s surprising that the lawyers argued this with a straight face. It’s a bit of a stretch. And an argument like this tends to undermine your entire case…”

Professor V: “So if you receive a check for $10,000 from North Carolina, you’re not going to say, “Ooo, North Carolina.I don’t know if I want to cash this. I might be subject to personal jurisdiction there!“

C’mon just hit me:

Professor V: “The only other case we have about general jurisdiction is the All-State case where the insurance company claimed that there wasn’t jurisdiction. But with a name like All-State you’re asking for it! It’s like saying “C’mon! Just hit me!”

3,000? Really?

Professor V: “And then we have this law review article³ where the professor suggested that he looked at 3,000 general jurisdiction cases…and he somehow got tenure anyway…”

---

¹ Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984).
² among other things. This was the weakest argument.
³ 34 Seton Hall L.Rev 807 (Westlaw: 34 SHLR 807)