In the Matter of the Application of Arthur Hyde RICE to Register and Confirm Title to Land Situated in Kailua, District of Koolaupoko, Oahu, City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii

In land court, the Bretons brought an action to cancel a lease agreement entered into with the defendant, Central Public Supply Corporation (CPS). The plaintiffs alleged that CPS breached the agreement by defaulting on payments and by vacating the premises. CPS counterclaimed and sought to rescind the lease, claiming that the Bretons, not CPS, had committed a breach of the agreement.

The land court conducted a bench trial and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. After the land court denied CPS's motion to set aside the decision, CPS appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawaii. That court, sua sponte (on its own initiative), dismissed the appeal and voided the judgment of the land court on the grounds that the land court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over breach of contract actions.

Mink v. AAAA Development LLC

The plaintiff, Mink, filed suit against the defendants for alleged copyright and patent infringements in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff's sole basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendants in Texas was their operation of an internet website accessible to Texas residents. The defendants moved the District Court to dismiss the complaint, successfully arguing that the court lacked in personam jurisdiction over them due to the absence of sufficient contacts with Texas. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that these defendants had been operating "a passive website. " The Court examined the nature of the nature and scope of the defendant's commercial internet activity and concluded that there was insufficient interactive activity to warrant the exercise of in personam jurisdiction in Texas.

Cronin v. Sierra Medical Center

The plaintiffs in this case are residents of New Mexico. They filed a medical malpractice suit in New Mexico against the defendant Medical Center, Southwestern Cardiovascular Associates, and four named medical doctors. The plaintiffs sought to invoke the New Mexico long-arm statute and serve process on the defendants in Texas. The plaintiffs claimed that their cause of action arose from the defendants' purposeful initiation of business activities within New Mexico and from the defendant's tortious acts committed within that state.

The plaintiffs supported their business transaction theory with evidence that the defendants had advertised in New Mexico phone directories, on television stations that were viewed by patients and potential customers residing within New Mexico, and had treated various patients who resided in New Mexico. They supported their tort allegation with testimony that although the alleged negligent treatment was received in Texas, the consequences of that treatment were experienced within New Mexico.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over their persons. They rejected claims that they had transacted business, and had committed a tortious act within New Mexico. They also asserted that there were insufficient contacts with New Mexico to subject them to personal jurisdiction in that forum. The trial court granted the motion as to both the Sierra Medical Center and the physicians and the plaintiff appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

The appeals court reversed with respect to the medical center, believing that its promotional activities were sufficient to constitute the transaction of business within the meaning of the New Mexico long-arm statute, and were sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts standard under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The appeals court affirmed the trial court, however, with respect to the plaintiff's claims against the defendant physicians. The doctors had not purposely engaged in conduct in New Mexico. The fact that their patients drove home to New Mexico rather than Texas was an incidental consequence and was not significant enough to confer in personam jurisdiction over these defendants within New Mexico.

Marathon Oil Company v. A.G. Ruhrgas

Marathon brought suit in federal district court again Ruhrgas. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) took the opportunity to delineate the importance of and differences between federal subject matter jurisdiction and federal personal jurisdiction. Federal subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the courts directly from the United States Congress. A federal court violates the fundamental constitutional principle of limited federal powers when it acts outside its statutory authority. Subject matter jurisdiction must be determined as a threshold issue before a federal court can hear any action.

Personal jurisdiction, on the other hand, comes not from the legislature but from the Due Process Clause. The court concluded that these are separate and distinct considerations that are absolute prerequisites to a federal court adjudicating a controversy.

Kopp v. Kopp

Donna Kopp filed suit against her former husband Donald in U.S. District Court. Her claim was based on a federal statute, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), and federal subject matter jurisdiction was premised on her having raised a federal question. In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2000 ruling that the VAWA was unconstitutional, the district court dismissed Donna Kopp's federal claim.

The district court also dismissed state claims after concluding that although the total diversity of citizenship element of diversity jurisdiction was met in this case, the plaintiff could not recover damages exceeding $75,000, the jurisdictional amount requirement. She appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, claiming that a fact finder might well award her more than $75,000 of damages. Given the horrific facts of this case, the Eighth Circuit agreed with Ms. Kopp and reversed.

Catherine Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc

The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she had been injured when she fell at a Wal-Mart store in Louisiana. She filed suit against the defendant in state court seeking damages. Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court, basing subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. Given that the parties were citizens of different states, there was no issue as to whether the total diversity of citizenship requirement had been met. Gebbia, however, had not specified a specific amount of damages when she filed her complaint in state court because such a practice is prohibited by Louisiana's rules of civil procedure.

Thus, for purposes of removal, Wal-Mart had to allege that the damages exceeded $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. The plaintiff, eighteen days prior to the trial, filed a motion requesting that the case be remanded to the state courts because the amount of damages she would be seeking was less than the jurisdictional amount. After a bench trial, the court awarded judgment to the defendant and the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeals court affirmed the district court, which had denied the plaintiff's remand motion.

Carson v. National Bank

Johnny Carson brought an action against a travel agency for invasion of privacy. The agency had used Carson's name and picture without his approval to promote a trip to Las Vegas. The U.S. District Court found that under Nebraska law, an individual has no right to control the use of his name or image. The court of appeals affirmed the entry of judgment for defendants, noting that even though Nebraska law differed from most other states, the Nebraska Supreme Court had not indicated any move toward changing its laws.