Question 1

If an Oregon Corporation sues the Environmental Protection Agency, a federal administrative agency, it may sue in either an Oregon state court or a federal district court located in Oregon.

Accepted Answer

In cases where the United States is a party, federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

Question 2

According to the Zippo standard, websites that provide information but do not provide the opportunity to conduct online transactions are deemed to be passive and do not create personal jurisdiction over the defendant company that operates the site.

Accepted Answer

Passive sites are equated to informational billboards and do not establish jurisdiction over defendant site operators.

Question 3

The United States has adopted the country of origin principle to determine the application of law in international online disputes.

Accepted Answer

The United States, Canada, and the European Union governments have adopted the country of origin principle to determine the application of law in international online disputes.

Question 4

A state court may not unilaterally declare or decide that proper venue for a case should be in another state.

Accepted Answer

Courts may apply rules or statutes to declare that they should be the proper venue for a case, but they cannot make such determinations for other states.

Question 5

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Washington
D.C., has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals from federal courts of appeals throughout the country prior to their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Washington
D.C., has exclusive jurisdiction to hear patent, copyright, and trademark cases or cases in which the United States is named as a defendant.

Accepted Answer

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over certain specialized cases, such as patent law and cases involving the federal government, but it does not hear appeals from other federal courts of appeals.

Question 6

Kathy and Tom are filing for divorce. Their marital home, which they still live in, is worth $7.5 million and their furniture and other assets are worth more than $25 million. Kathy wants half of everything, but Tom doesn't think she deserves more than 25 percent. They may file in federal court to have their dispute adjudicated.

Accepted Answer

Divorce is a state matter that is usually heard in a court of limited jurisdiction (only hears divorces and family matters). Federal court will lack diversity jurisdiction because Kathy and Tom are in the same home (same state) and this is not a federal question.

Question 7

Diversity jurisdiction is a form of federal personal jurisdiction.

Accepted Answer

Diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject matter jurisdiction.

Question 8

A business entity is considered a person in terms of assessing personal jurisdiction.

Accepted Answer

Business entities are treated as "persons" with regard to personal jurisdiction.

Question 9

A state probate court, which hears only will and estate matters, is generally described as having limited authority or jurisdiction.

Accepted Answer

State trial courts that hear only particular matters are generally described as having limited authority or jurisdiction.

Question 10

The effects test has been used by courts to establish personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants for both intentional and unintentional acts that have caused harm to in-state plaintiffs.

Accepted Answer

The effects test has been interpreted very narrowly and has been used by courts to establish personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants only regarding intentional acts.

Question 11

When a U.S. company conducts business with a foreign company online, U.S. law will automatically apply to the transaction should there be a dispute.

Accepted Answer

This is an unsettled conflict-of-laws question that depends on the parties' agreement, if any.

Question 12

In Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft, the fact that Pilatus had purchased over $1 million in products and services from Pennsylvania suppliers was not sufficient to establish minimum contacts or show purposeful availment in Pennsylvania sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

Accepted Answer

The $1 million of business represented less than 1 percent of the defendant's business, which was too insignificant to establish jurisdiction.

Question 13

E-mail communications between parties in an ongoing business relationship have been found to create sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction without a separate physical presence, and this rule is the prevailing law throughout the United States.

Accepted Answer

The case establishing this rule was decided in federal district court and, while adopted in some jurisdictions, is not prevailing precedent in all jurisdictions.

Question 14

According to the Zippo standard, any website that is in any way interactive with customers will be sufficient to create personal jurisdiction over a nonresident company.

Accepted Answer

In cases where an interactive site is used by the defendant, the courts will examine the site on a case-by-case basis to determine the level of interactivity and whether personal jurisdiction applies.

Question 15

Delaware and New Jersey are separated by the Delaware River. New Jersey has started to build a pier extending well into the river, and Delaware claims that the construction will infringe on Delaware's navigational rights. If a lawsuit is filed, it must be filed in either a Delaware or New Jersey state court.

Accepted Answer

Matters between states are a federal court matter.

Question 16

Minimum contacts in a state need not be shown if an out-of-state corporation's conduct has the reasonably foreseeable potential to cause injurious effects to a forum state plaintiff.

Accepted Answer

Reasonably foreseeable injurious effects from a defendant's intentional acts can create personal jurisdiction even in the absence of a physical presence or minimum contacts.

Question 17

State long-arm statutes are used to establish subject matter jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

Accepted Answer

State long-arm statutes are used to establish personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

Question 18

The physical presence of an out-of-state party in a particular state is generally an automatic basis for jurisdiction over the defendant by both that state's courts and the federal trial court within that state.

Accepted Answer

Actual physical presence meets the minimum-contacts requirements and establishes personal jurisdiction.

Question 19

According to the Zippo standard for assessing minimal contacts by an out-of-state Internet-based company, it is possible for a passive website to also be considered a site integral to the company's business model.

Accepted Answer

Passive sites are mere billboards of information and do not rise to a level creating personal jurisdiction. They may be helpful to a company, but they are not integral to a company's business model.

Question 20

All American taxpayers are allowed to bring any case they want to in federal court at any time.

Accepted Answer

To bring a case in federal court the plaintiff must show that a federal question is at issue or that diversity jurisdiction applies.

Quiz 3: The American Judicial System, Jurisdiction, and Venue