Yeazell, pp. 191-212: Self-Imposed Restraints on Jurisdictional Power: Long-Arm Statutes, Venue, and Discretionary Refusal of Jurisdiction


We have assumed so far that the only issues of jurisdiction are constitutional.  It turns out that there are situations where jurisdiction is constricted further than the outer bounds set by the Constitution.


1.     Long-Arm Statutes as a Restraint on Jurisdiction


Many states authorize their courts to exercise jurisdiction over defendants in other states.


Case: Gibbons v. Brown


2.     Venue as a Further Localizing Principle


Venue is purely statutory.  However, the statutes tend to recapitulate the standards for personal jurisdiction (contacts or where a defendant resides, for example).  There needs to be a separate law for venue because it gets more specific than personal jurisdiction.


Case: Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.


3.     Declining Jurisdiction: Transfer and Forum Non Conveniens


Courts can choose not to hear a case over which they otherwise would have proper venue and jurisdiction.  The court may conclude, for example, that there is a local prejudice against one of the parties that will keep them from getting a fair trial.  The court also may find that important witnesses for whom travel is difficult may not be able to make it to the current venue.


a.     Forum Non Conveniens


Case: Piper Aircraft v. Reyno


Back to Casebook Notes