Category > Social SciencePosted 20 Sep 2017My Price10.00
Page 1 of 8 Cybersell, Inc. Cybersell, Inc.
1.Who are the parties, and in which states are they incorporated?
2. What are the facts of the case?
3. What is the procedural history of the case?
4. What is the main issue of the case?
5. What is the court’s holding? You will have the opportunity to explain the court’s reasoning in later questions.
6. What is the three-part test that the court uses to determine whether a district court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant?
7. How does Cybersell AZ argue that the test is met?
8. How does Cybersell FL argue that the test is not met?
9. Fill in the blank space.According to the United States Supreme Court in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958), “it is essential in each case that _______________________________________________________________________________.”
10. Why did the court in CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996), conclude that Patterson, the Texas resident who subscribed to CompuServe and placed items of shareware on the CompuServe system pursuant to a Shareware Registration Agreement, purposefully availed himself of the privilege of doing business in Ohio?
11. Why did the court in Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997), conclude that the owner of the Missouri jazz club, who created a general access web page (i.e., the web page required no authentication or access code for entry) that contained information about the club, as well as a calendar of events and ticketing information, but did not allow users to buy tickets through the web page, did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits of New York?
12. According to the court, is creating a web site, without more, an act purposefully directed toward the forum state? State YES or NO.
13. The court characterized the website in Bensusan as passive. According to the court, in an interactive website, what can users do?
14. Fill in the blank spaces. “Courts that have addressed interactive sites have looked to the ‘level of __________ and ____________ nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site’ to determine if sufficient contacts exist to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.” Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 418 (citations omitted).
15. Was the court aware at the time of this opinion of any decision in which a court held that an Internet advertisement alone was sufficient to subject the advertiser to jurisdiction in the plaintiff’s home state? State YES or No.
16. Fill in the blank space. According to the court (quoting Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997)), “the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to _________________________________________.”
17. Did Cybersell FL conduct any commercial activity over the Internet in Arizona? State YES or NO AND EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER THOROUGHLY. (YES or NO; And explanation the why the answer is YES or NO)
18. If the court were to have found that Cybersell FL did have sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona for personal jurisdiction to be asserted over it there, what did the court would say could happen, and would that result comport with traditional notions of what qualifies as purposeful activity invoking the benefits and protections of the forum state? Hint: See p. *420: “Otherwise, every complaint ….”
