Civ Pro MCQ

A defendant can agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the court by contract, but only if the court determines that the contract was not a contract of adhesion.

A defendant can stipulate to personal jurisdiction before an action is brought.

Consent is given when a person appoints an agent to accept service of process in a state.

Filing a counterclaim can be considered implied consent to personal jurisdiction.

A defendant's voluntary appearance in court automatically waives an objection to personal jurisdiction.

All states have enacted long-arm statutes that authorize personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who engage in some activity in the state or cause some action to occur within the state.

An objection to personal jurisdiction is waived if not raised in the answer or in a Rule 12 motion.

A defendant can object to personal jurisdiction at any time during the proceedings.

In all states, the long-arm statute directly authorizes jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause.

In some states, the long-arm statute confers jurisdiction over all activities undertaken in the state.

Under attachment jurisdiction, a plaintiff can use attachment of property owned by the defendant and located in the forum state as a device to obtain jurisdiction without minimum contacts.

A federal court in a state with a long-arm statute need only determine whether the statutory requirements have been met.

The Due Process Clause sets a higher standard for personal jurisdiction than the long-arm statute in some states.

A defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are irrelevant in determining personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.

Attachment of property owned by the defendant and located in the forum state is sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.

The long-arm statute is a federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction in all states.

If a non-resident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court may assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant without attachment jurisdiction.

The assertion of personal jurisdiction by a court depends on the general principles of fair play and substantial justice, regardless of the specific facts of the case.

Since Shaffer v. Heitner, it is possible to gain jurisdiction over a person based solely on the presence of their property within the state.

A defendant's contacts with the forum state must be accidental and insignificant to warrant the assertion of in personam jurisdiction.

In determining whether a defendant's contacts are sufficient, the court considers whether the defendant recognized or anticipated the risk of being sued in the particular state.

The requirement of minimum contacts only applies to actions to enforce previous judgments by remedies such as attachment, garnishment, and sequestration.

Personal jurisdiction is not dependent on the specific facts of each case, and follows a general framework.

The International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) established that a non-resident defendant's property within the state is sufficient to establish in personam jurisdiction.

A defendant may agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the court by contract, regardless of whether the contract is a contract of adhesion.

A defendant may stipulate to personal jurisdiction only after an action is brought.

Most states have enacted long-arm statutes that authorize personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who engage in some activity in the state or cause some action to occur within the state.

A defendant's voluntary appearance in court automatically subjects the defendant to personal jurisdiction, but this can be objected to by motion or in the answer.

The Due Process Clause sets a minimum standard for personal jurisdiction that long-arm statutes cannot exceed.

A non-resident defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are irrelevant in determining personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.

If a non-resident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court may assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant without attachment jurisdiction.

The long-arm statute is a federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction in all states.

In all states, the long-arm statute confers jurisdiction only over specific activities undertaken in the state.

Under attachment jurisdiction, a plaintiff can use attachment of property owned by the defendant and located in the forum state as a device to obtain jurisdiction without minimum contacts.

A federal court in a state with a long-arm statute need only determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process.

Mere ownership of attached property is generally sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts test.

The long-arm statute is a federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction in all states.

If a non-resident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court may assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant without attachment jurisdiction.

The requirement of minimum contacts only applies to actions to enforce previous judgments by remedies such as attachment, garnishment, and sequestration.

Personal jurisdiction is dependent on the specific facts of each case.

A court can assert in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the defendant has purposeful and substantial contacts with the forum state, but the defendant did not foresee being taken to court there.

All states have enacted long-arm statutes that authorize personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who engage in some activity in the state or cause some action to occur within the state, and all long-arm statutes confer jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause.

A plaintiff can use attachment of property owned by the defendant and located in the forum state as a device to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant without minimum contacts, even after Shaffer v. Heitner.

A non-resident defendant's property within the state is sufficient to establish in personam jurisdiction, without considering whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state.

In determining whether a defendant's contacts are sufficient, the court considers whether the defendant recognized or anticipated the risk of being sued in a particular state, but only in cases involving internet jurisdiction.

A defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are irrelevant in determining personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.

If a non-resident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court can assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant and also attach the defendant's property located in the forum state.

Personal jurisdiction depends on the specific facts of each case and considers whether the assertion of jurisdiction by the court would comport with fair play and substantial justice.

A defendant can stipulate to personal jurisdiction before an action is brought in a federal court under diversity jurisdiction.

Under § 1367(b), supplemental jurisdiction is precluded for claims by existing plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, Rule 19, Rule 20, or Rule 24 in diversity cases.

A cross-claim can be asserted by a plaintiff against another plaintiff if the cross-claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the initial claim.

A court can assert in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state and the defendant did not foresee being taken to court there.

The long-arm statute is a federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction in all states.

If a non-resident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court may assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant without attachment jurisdiction.

Under attachment jurisdiction, a plaintiff can use attachment of property owned by the defendant and located in the forum state as a device to obtain jurisdiction without minimum contacts.

Personal jurisdiction depends on the specific facts of each case and considers whether the assertion of jurisdiction by the court would comport with fair play and substantial justice.

For certain class actions in which the amount at issue totals more than $5,000,000, diversity will be met if any member of the plaintiff class is diverse with any defendant.

Under the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002, only one plaintiff need be of diverse citizenship from one defendant for a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction.

Under § 1369(b), the district court must always hear the case if the requirements of § 1369(a) are met.

Complete diversity is required for federal rule interpleader.

Under the Act, there need be only one adverse claimant of diverse citizenship to establish federal jurisdiction.

The Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 applies to all civil actions.

The Act provides for nationwide service of process.

A foreign state may sue one or more citizens of one or more U.S. states in federal court.

A defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are irrelevant in determining personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.

A defendant can object to personal jurisdiction at any time during the proceedings under the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002.

Complete diversity requires that all plaintiffs are from the same state as all defendants.

The term 'state' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories in the context of diversity jurisdiction.

The Federal Interpleader Act allows a holder of property to deposit the property with a court to determine ownership.

A defendant's voluntary appearance in court automatically waives an objection to personal jurisdiction.

The long-arm statute is a federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction in all states.

If a non-resident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court may assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant without attachment jurisdiction.

For certain class actions in which the amount at issue totals more than $5,000,000, diversity will be met if any member of the plaintiff class is diverse with any defendant.

Under § 1369(a), for a civil action that arises from a single accident, complete diversity of citizenship is required for federal jurisdiction.

In federal interpleader, complete diversity of citizenship is required for federal jurisdiction.

Under the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002, the district court must always hear the case if the requirements are met.

Under the Act, anyone involved in the accident can intervene as a plaintiff.

Nationwide service of process is not permitted under the Act.

There are no exceptions to the requirement of diversity jurisdiction under the Act.

In a case with diversity jurisdiction, the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that does not meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement as long as it meets the common-nucleus-of-operative-facts test.

Under the Act, the amount at issue is irrelevant to diversity jurisdiction.

The federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim made by a plaintiff who is not diverse from one of the defendants.

In a diversity jurisdiction case, the court can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who is not diverse from one of the plaintiffs if the claim is compulsory.

A defendant can be joined under permissive joinder in a diversity jurisdiction case as long as the claim against them meets the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

A counterclaim made by a defendant against a plaintiff can be asserted without satisfying the jurisdictional amount if it is a compulsory counterclaim.

A permissive counterclaim made by a defendant against a plaintiff must satisfy the jurisdictional amount and complete diversity requirements.

The court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against a defendant who was joined under permissive joinder in a diversity jurisdiction case.

The federal court can exercise jurisdiction over a claim against a defendant who was joined under compulsory joinder in a diversity jurisdiction case, even if the claim does not meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

When there is a legitimate assignment of a claim, the assignor’s citizenship, as opposed to the assignee’s citizenship, will be determinative for diversity purposes.

A party may manufacture diversity jurisdiction by failing to join a nondiverse indispensable party.

A party’s motive for changing citizenship is relevant in determining whether the change of state citizenship is genuine for diversity purposes.

Improper or collusive devices to invoke federal jurisdiction are allowed.

Assignment of claims can never create or destroy diversity jurisdiction.

A party can voluntarily change state citizenship after the accrual of a cause of action, but before the commencement of a lawsuit, and therefore establish or defeat diversity jurisdiction.

Failure to name indispensable parties can never affect diversity jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction can be created or destroyed by the use of collusive devices.

Under Rule 4(k)(1)(A), a federal court determines personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state where the district court is located.

A federal court has nationwide personal jurisdiction over a defendant in all cases.

The 'bulge provision' under Rule 4(k)(1)(B) applies to all parties in a federal court.

In determining whether a defendant's contacts are sufficient, the court considers whether the defendant recognized or anticipated the risk of being sued in any state.

A federal court must look to state jurisdictional statutes to determine if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties before it.

Federal courts always have personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is served within a U.S. judicial district and not more than 100 miles from where the summons is issued.

A defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are irrelevant in determining personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.

A federal court determines personal jurisdiction solely based on the state jurisdictional statutes.

If a non-resident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court may assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant without attachment jurisdiction.

A court can assert in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the defendant has purposeful and substantial contacts with the forum state, even if the defendant did not foresee being taken to court there.

The long-arm statute is a federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction in all states.

The existence of a contract can be a significant factor in determining that minimum contacts exist, such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident is appropriate.

A federal court need only determine whether the statutory requirements of the state jurisdictional statute have been met to assert personal jurisdiction.

A choice-of-law provision in a contract indicating that the forum state's law is to be used in any action with regard to the contract will not be a significant factor in finding jurisdiction.

In rem jurisdiction is the authority of a court to determine issues concerning rights in property, and such determination is conclusive only against the parties named.

Personal jurisdiction depends on the specific facts of each case and considers whether the assertion of jurisdiction by the court would comport with fair play and substantial justice.

For diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is considered a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of business only.

A corporation can have multiple states of incorporation.

The principal place of business of a corporation is the state where it is incorporated.

Diversity jurisdiction will exist if any opposing party is a citizen of any of the states of which the corporation is a citizen.

A corporation's state of incorporation is the state in which the corporate entity is legally established.

The 'nerve center' of the corporation refers to its state of incorporation.

Class actions require diversity jurisdiction if the amount at issue totals more than $5,000,000.

Diversity jurisdiction will exist if any member of the plaintiff class is diverse with any defendant, regardless of the amount at issue.