Question

For each of the following situations, state whether there would be in personal jurisdiction and, if so, whether it is because of domicile, consent, or long-arm statute

1. A) Does personal jurisdiction exist?
1. Yes
2. No

2. B) If personal jurisdiction exists, is it due to domicile, consent, or long-arm statute?
1. Domicile
2. Consent
3. Long-arm statute
4. None of the above

For each situation, indicate whether personal jurisdiction exists and, if so, specify whether it is based on domicile, consent, or a long-arm statute.

Answer 1

Personal jurisdiction exists in situations involving an arrest, a lawsuit in the same jurisdiction, or an individual being located within a jurisdiction. Domicile, consent, and long-arm statute are factors that determine the basis of personal jurisdiction in different situations.

Step-by-step explanation:

1. In the situation described, personal jurisdiction would likely exist because Sara, as a college student, is physically present in the jurisdiction where she was arrested. Personal jurisdiction based on domicile would not apply in this case. Consent would also not be a factor because Sara did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction. However, the long-arm statute may allow for personal jurisdiction if Sara committed the crime online and the state has a provision that extends jurisdiction to online activities.

2. In this case, personal jurisdiction would exist because the Jones family is being sued in their own jurisdiction, where the incident occurred. Personal jurisdiction based on domicile would not apply. Consent is not relevant in this situation. The long-arm statute would also not apply since the lawsuit is within the same jurisdiction.

3. Personal jurisdiction would exist in Carolyn's case because she was arrested and tried within the jurisdiction where the shoplifting incident took place. Domicile and consent are not relevant factors in this situation. The judge's decision to impose a punishment of cutting off Carolyn's hands would likely violate the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

4. In this situation, personal jurisdiction would exist because Mr. Reynolds is located within the jurisdiction where the ATF agents approached him. Domicile and consent are not applicable. However, the ATF's actions would likely violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.