Civ Pro Short Answer

When authorized by federal statute, such as for federal statutory interpleader actions.

Rule 4(k)(1)(A)

To allow personal jurisdiction over a party served within a U.S. judicial district and not more than 100 miles from where the summons is issued.

<p>The doctrine that federal courts must determine personal jurisdiction as if they were a court of the state in which they are situated.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>By looking to state jurisdictional statutes, such as long-arm statutes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The case established that federal courts generally do not have nationwide personal jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>When authorized by federal statute, or under the 'bulge provision' of Rule 4(k)(1)(B).</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Service of a summons within a U.S. judicial district and not more than 100 miles from where the summons is issued.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>$5,000,000</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state where it is incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Diversity jurisdiction will not exist.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The state in which the corporate entity is legally established.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The 'nerve center' of the corporation, as held by the Supreme Court in Hertz Corp. v. Friend.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It is considered a citizen of each state and foreign country in which it is incorporated.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>No</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To provide for diversity jurisdiction in certain class actions.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The existence of the contract can be a significant factor in determining minimum contacts exist, such as in Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It indicates that the forum state's law is to be used in any action with regard to the contract, which can be a significant factor in finding jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Personal jurisdiction based on the contract is not appropriate.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The authority of a court to determine issues concerning rights in property, either real or personal.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Forfeiture and eminent domain actions initiated by the government, as well as quiet-title actions initiated by a private party.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The determination is conclusive as against all potential claimants.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Because the fact that one party to a contract is a resident of the forum state will not, by itself, confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident party.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The choice-of-law provision can be a significant factor in finding jurisdiction by establishing that the nonresident purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of the forum's laws.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The Erie doctrine requires federal courts to apply state law when determining personal jurisdiction, ensuring consistency with state court decisions.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A federal court determines the applicable state law by looking to the state's jurisdictional statutes, as if it were a court of the state in which it is situated.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A federal statute can authorize nationwide personal jurisdiction, such as in federal statutory interpleader actions.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>CAFA expanded federal jurisdiction over class actions, allowing for removal to federal court in certain cases.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The court considers the contract as a significant factor in determining minimum contacts, including the non-resident's purposeful availment of the forum's laws.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a party not subject to state jurisdiction in certain circumstances, such as under Rule 4(k)(1)(C) for federal statutory interpleader actions.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A choice-of-law provision indicating the forum state's law is to be used in any action with regard to the contract is a significant factor in finding jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The 'bulge provision' allows federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who is served within a U.S. judicial district and not more than 100 miles from where the summons is issued.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Personal jurisdiction based on the contract is not appropriate if it is adhesive or procured through fraud.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In rem jurisdiction determines issues concerning rights in property, while quasi-in-rem jurisdiction involves disputes over property but also involves a party's personal rights.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In class actions, federal courts consider the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and federal jurisdictional statutes, whereas in individual cases, they apply state jurisdictional statutes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Yes, a federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a corporation based on its 'principal place of business', which is considered one of the corporation's citizenships for diversity purposes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The court's determination of title to the property is conclusive as against all potential claimants.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A contract alone does not confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident party.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A choice-of-law provision can be a significant factor in establishing personal jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The court applies the law of the state in which it sits to determine personal jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>$5,000,000</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state where it is incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Diversity jurisdiction will not exist.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It is the location of the corporation's principal place of business.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It is considered a citizen of each state and foreign country in which it is incorporated.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>No</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To provide for greater diversity jurisdiction in certain class actions.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It can impact diversity jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A change of state citizenship is ineffective if it is not genuine, and the party changed their domicile specifically to create or destroy diversity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Diversity jurisdiction is not established.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The assignee's citizenship determines diversity jurisdiction, unless the assignment is being made to manufacture or create diversity jurisdiction collusively.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Federal jurisdiction is prohibited.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A party may voluntarily change state citizenship after the accrual of a cause of action, but before the commencement of a lawsuit, to establish or defeat diversity jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The case illustrates that an assignment to a nominal party having no real interest in the claim is collusive and does not establish diversity jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Diversity jurisdiction is not established.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The party's citizenship determines whether diversity jurisdiction is established.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The claim meets the common nucleus of operative facts test.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear claims that do not meet the complete diversity requirement, but are related to claims that do.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Interpleader cases.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Compulsory joinder is required when a party is necessary to a lawsuit, while permissive joinder is allowed when a party is not necessary but has a claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>When the counterclaim is compulsory.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The counterclaim must be compulsory and arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Permissive joinder can destroy diversity, which would prevent a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over the case.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>When the cross-claim is compulsory and arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>More than $5,000,000, under § 1332(d)(2)(A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If at least 75 natural persons have died in the accident at a discrete location, and certain conditions are met, under § 1369(a)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Complete diversity is required, which means that all parties on one side of the case must be diverse from all parties on the other side</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Any member of the plaintiff class must be diverse from any defendant, under § 1332(d)(2)(A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To allow the district court to abstain from hearing the case if certain conditions are met, under § 1369(b)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It allows for the service of process on defendants nationwide, regardless of their location</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Only one plaintiff needs to be diverse from one defendant, under § 1369(a)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It allows anyone involved in the accident to intervene as a plaintiff, regardless of their initial participation in the case</p> Signup and view all the answers