Gibbons
v. Brown
716
So.2d 868 (
Yeazell,
pp. 192-193
Facts: Brown and her husband got
into an accident with Gibbons. Brown’s
husband was driving, and Gibbons allegedly gave him bad directions, causing the
accident. Gibbons, a
Issue: Does the
Rule:
Analysis: The court assumes that the
first lawsuit is over, and thus finds that Gibbons is not currently
engaged in any activities in
Conclusion: The court dismisses Mrs.
Brown’s lawsuit.
Notes
and Problems
1. The court
doesn’t address the constitutional test, but rather just the
a. Ms. Gibbons’s
activity doesn’t satisfy the
a. Assuming that
purposeful availment doesn’t have a time limit,
b. Gibbons is distinguishable from
this case based on the
2.
a. In order to
make the statute the same as the due process clause, you would get rid of the
words “tortious act”, because presumably you can get jurisdiction over a
contract breaker as well. You would get
rid of “injury” and “within the state”, as well as “regularly” and “in the
state”…well, basically, you would have to change the whole thing.
b. If you
interpret the words “person or property within the state” to include persons domiciled
in the state of
3.
a. The state test
is always a threshold test that you do before you even look at the
Constitution.
b. It could be
good for business for a state to restrict its jurisdiction. Companies might like doing business there
better if they know they are less likely to have to defend themselves in that
forum.
c. Even if the
statute is written one way, it may be interpreted more broadly.
4. The
5.
a. Since notice
is a necessary but not sufficient condition for personal jurisdiction, there’s
no problem constitutionally, unless I misunderstand and Steve Y. is telling me
that notice has been construed to be sufficient for personal jurisdiction. In either case, federal courts might
sometimes serve notice but subsequently find that there is no personal
jurisdiction.
b. The problem
here is that there’s a lack of notice to the defendant that he could be subject
to personal jurisdiction on a state claim, contrary to the clear language of
the statute. It is the right result as
far as efficiency goes, I suppose.