STUDENTS SUCCESS
Revision Examination Tests
“Come all for this greatness”
...100% Correct Ans...
CIV 3701 PACK (CIVIL PROCEDURE) ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1
ANSWERS/SOLUTIONS (UNISA) 2024 /2025 - DISTINCTION
GUARANTEED 100%
Right Court?
ans:> (1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)
(2) Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
(3) Venue
Learning about case
ans:> (1) Service of process
(2) Pleadings
(3) Discovery
Multiparty cases
ans:> (1) Party joinder
(2) Class action
Adjudication
ans:> (1) injunctions
(2) Pretrial
(3) Trial
Appellate Review
ans:> (1) Final judgment
(2) Interlocutory
(3) Standard of review
Preclusion
ans:> (1) Claim preclusion
(2) Issue preclusion
,Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) - Basic Idea
ans:> PJ is about the court's power over the defendant.
Because P filed the case, the court automatically has power over P. The
big question is: *Can P sue D in this state?*
Personal Jurisdiction - Two-Step Analysis
ans:> PJ must:
(1) Satisfy a state statute *AND*
(2) Satisfy the Constitution (Due Process).
Personal Jurisdiction - State versus Federal Court - Same Analysis in
Both
ans:> This analysis *does not* differ depending on whether the case will
be filed in federal court or state court in the forum state.
Whether a federal court in State X has PJ over D is assessed exactly the
same way as whether a state court in State X would have PJ. No
difference.
Personal Jurisdiction - In Personam Jurisdiction
ans:> Exists when the forum has power over the person of a particular
defendant.
P sues to impose a personal obligation on D.
Personal Jurisdiction - Statutory analysis - Step 1
ans:> Each state is free to have its own statutes for in personam
jurisdiction, so not testable on MBE.
In most states, the statute says jurisdiction is OK if the case meets *the
constitutional test.*
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts Step
2
ans:> Does D have "such minimum contacts with the forum so
jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice?"
Less likely on MBE, more likely on *essay*
,Personal Jurisdiction - Step 2: Constitutional Analysis - Minimum
Contacts - Fairness Test
ans:> To determine whether the minimum contacts requirement is met,
we assess the following factors:
1. Contact, which includes
(a) Personal availment AND
(b) Foreseeability
2. Relatedness, AND
3. Fairness
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
*Contact*
ans:> There must be relevant contact between D and the forum state.
Two factors:
1. *Purposeful availment,* AND
2. Foreseeability
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Contact - *Purposeful Availment*
ans:> Purposeful availment involves D's voluntary act, which means that
D must "reach out" to the forum state in order to purposely avail himself
to PJ.
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Contact - *Examples of Purposeful Availment *
ans:> Examples of acts of purposeful availment:
(1) *Marketing* a product in the forum;
(2) *Using the roads* in the forum;
(3) Establishing *domicile* in the forum;
(4) *Traveling* in the forum;
, (5) *Sending a tortious email* into the forum
Purposeful Availment - Can D purposely avail without setting foot in the
forum?
ans:> Can D purposely avail without setting foot in the forum?
Yes, by causing an effect in the forum.
e.g. sending a tortious email into the forum
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Contact - *Foreseeability*
ans:> It must be foreseeable that D could get sued in this forum.
(Contact = Purposeful availment + foreseeability)
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
*Relatedness*
ans:> Relatedness between D's contact and P's claim.
Ask: Does P's claim arise from D's contact with the forum?
If the answer is yes, the court might uphold PJ even if D does not have
much contact with forum (depending on whether PJ would be fair).
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Relatedness - *Specific Personal Jurisdiction*
ans:> Where the claim *arises from D's contact with the forum*, it is
called *specific PJ*.
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Fairness Factors - Claim Does Not Arise Out of D's Contact with the
Forum
ans:> If the claim does not arise from D's contact with the forum, then,
jurisdiction is ok *ONLY if* the has *general PJ*.
If so, D can be sued there for a claim that arose *anywhere in the world.*
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - General Jurisdiction
ans:> To have general PJ, D must be *at home* in the forum.
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - General Jurisdiction - "At
home" for a Human Defendant
Revision Examination Tests
“Come all for this greatness”
...100% Correct Ans...
CIV 3701 PACK (CIVIL PROCEDURE) ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1
ANSWERS/SOLUTIONS (UNISA) 2024 /2025 - DISTINCTION
GUARANTEED 100%
Right Court?
ans:> (1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)
(2) Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
(3) Venue
Learning about case
ans:> (1) Service of process
(2) Pleadings
(3) Discovery
Multiparty cases
ans:> (1) Party joinder
(2) Class action
Adjudication
ans:> (1) injunctions
(2) Pretrial
(3) Trial
Appellate Review
ans:> (1) Final judgment
(2) Interlocutory
(3) Standard of review
Preclusion
ans:> (1) Claim preclusion
(2) Issue preclusion
,Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) - Basic Idea
ans:> PJ is about the court's power over the defendant.
Because P filed the case, the court automatically has power over P. The
big question is: *Can P sue D in this state?*
Personal Jurisdiction - Two-Step Analysis
ans:> PJ must:
(1) Satisfy a state statute *AND*
(2) Satisfy the Constitution (Due Process).
Personal Jurisdiction - State versus Federal Court - Same Analysis in
Both
ans:> This analysis *does not* differ depending on whether the case will
be filed in federal court or state court in the forum state.
Whether a federal court in State X has PJ over D is assessed exactly the
same way as whether a state court in State X would have PJ. No
difference.
Personal Jurisdiction - In Personam Jurisdiction
ans:> Exists when the forum has power over the person of a particular
defendant.
P sues to impose a personal obligation on D.
Personal Jurisdiction - Statutory analysis - Step 1
ans:> Each state is free to have its own statutes for in personam
jurisdiction, so not testable on MBE.
In most states, the statute says jurisdiction is OK if the case meets *the
constitutional test.*
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts Step
2
ans:> Does D have "such minimum contacts with the forum so
jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice?"
Less likely on MBE, more likely on *essay*
,Personal Jurisdiction - Step 2: Constitutional Analysis - Minimum
Contacts - Fairness Test
ans:> To determine whether the minimum contacts requirement is met,
we assess the following factors:
1. Contact, which includes
(a) Personal availment AND
(b) Foreseeability
2. Relatedness, AND
3. Fairness
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
*Contact*
ans:> There must be relevant contact between D and the forum state.
Two factors:
1. *Purposeful availment,* AND
2. Foreseeability
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Contact - *Purposeful Availment*
ans:> Purposeful availment involves D's voluntary act, which means that
D must "reach out" to the forum state in order to purposely avail himself
to PJ.
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Contact - *Examples of Purposeful Availment *
ans:> Examples of acts of purposeful availment:
(1) *Marketing* a product in the forum;
(2) *Using the roads* in the forum;
(3) Establishing *domicile* in the forum;
(4) *Traveling* in the forum;
, (5) *Sending a tortious email* into the forum
Purposeful Availment - Can D purposely avail without setting foot in the
forum?
ans:> Can D purposely avail without setting foot in the forum?
Yes, by causing an effect in the forum.
e.g. sending a tortious email into the forum
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Contact - *Foreseeability*
ans:> It must be foreseeable that D could get sued in this forum.
(Contact = Purposeful availment + foreseeability)
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
*Relatedness*
ans:> Relatedness between D's contact and P's claim.
Ask: Does P's claim arise from D's contact with the forum?
If the answer is yes, the court might uphold PJ even if D does not have
much contact with forum (depending on whether PJ would be fair).
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Relatedness - *Specific Personal Jurisdiction*
ans:> Where the claim *arises from D's contact with the forum*, it is
called *specific PJ*.
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Minimum Contacts -
Fairness Factors - Claim Does Not Arise Out of D's Contact with the
Forum
ans:> If the claim does not arise from D's contact with the forum, then,
jurisdiction is ok *ONLY if* the has *general PJ*.
If so, D can be sued there for a claim that arose *anywhere in the world.*
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - General Jurisdiction
ans:> To have general PJ, D must be *at home* in the forum.
Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - General Jurisdiction - "At
home" for a Human Defendant
