Jurisdiction over the persons or entities involved in the lawsuit is called:

Personal jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction

Substantive due process involves:

An examination of the claim, that is, whether someone is actually negligent.
An examination of the motion, that is, the movant’s argument.
An examination of the substance of the statute, that is, what the statute requires.
An examination of the contacts between the state in which the court has jurisdiction and the defendant or property.

Procedural due process requires:

That the defendant receives adequate notice of a pending action.
That the defendant receives an opportunity to be heard.
All of the above.

Alan, domiciled in Tennessee, and Bill, domiciled in Kentucky, are involved in a motor vehicle accident in Kentucky. Alan files an action against Bill in Kentucky. Does the court have jurisdiction over Bill?

No, because Alan is a resident of Tennessee.
Yes, because Bill is domiciled in Kentucky.
No, because the action should have been filed in Tennessee.

Alan, domiciled in Tennessee, and Bill, domiciled in Kentucky, are involved in a motor vehicle accident in Tennessee. Alan files an action against Bill in Tennessee. Does the court have jurisdiction over Bill?

Yes, if Tennessee has a non-resident motorist statute.
Yes, because Alan is domiciled in Tennessee.
No, because Bill is domiciled in Kentucky.

ABC Corp. (“ABC”) is incorporated in Montana and has its principal place of business in Montana. It does not have a website, it does not accept calls from persons out of state, it does not advertise out of Montana, and it has never had a customer who lives outside of Montana. ABC sells special grass seed that is effective only on certain plains within Montana. ABC sold its product to Bill, who lives in Montana. Bill files an action in court in Missouri alleging that ABC breached its contract with Bill. Does the court have jurisdiction over ABC Corp.?

Yes, because ABC is a corporation and courts have jurisdiction over all American corporations.
No, because it would be fundamentally unfair for the federal district court in Missouri to determine ABC’s rights and liabilities since ABC has no contact with Missouri and does not consent to the court’s jurisdiction..
No, because Bill is a citizen of Montana and should have brought the action in court in Montana.
Yes, because the plaintiff has the right to choose in which district court he brings his action.

Jake lives in North Dakota and Bill lives in South Dakota. While visiting Jake’s home, Bill is injured. Bill brings a cause of action against Jake in South Dakota. To ensure that Jake is served with process while in South Dakota, Bill calls Jake and informs him that Jake’s mother, who lives in South Dakota, has had a heart attack and has been rushed to the local emergency room. Jake’s mother has not, in fact, had a heart attack and is in very good health. Jake, concerned for his mother’s health, drops everything and rushes to the hospital in South Dakota. When Jake walks through the doors of the emergency room, he is greeted by a man who serves him with the summons and a copy of the complaint Bill has filed in court in South Dakota. Jake appears in the trial court and files a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Will the court grant or deny the motion?

Deny, because Jake appeared before the court and therefore consented to jurisdiction.
Grant, because there was no way in which the court could have ever obtained personal jurisdiction over Jake.
Grant, because Jake was induced to go into South Dakota under false pretences.
Deny, because Jake was served in South Dakota, and therefore, the South Dakota court obtained personal jurisdiction over him.

John has filed an action in federal court in Florida against Andrew for injuries John sustained during a car accident that occurred in Georgia. Andrew lives Georgia. After Andrew is served with the summons and complaint, he timely files an answer denying liability. The trial begins, John presents his case, Andrew presents his case, and the court hears final motions before the case is sent to the jury for their decision. Andrew then moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Will the court grant or deny the motion?

Deny, because Andrew waived personal jurisdiction.
Deny, because a motion to dismiss is not the proper vehicle through which to contest personal jurisdiction.
Grant, because the court has no jurisdiction over Andrew.
Grant, because Andrew filed the motion before the jury began deliberating.

John has filed an action in federal court in Florida against Andrew for injuries John sustained during a car accident that occurred in Georgia. Andrew lives Georgia. After Andrew is served with the summons and complaint, he makes an appearance in court and moves to dismiss the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Andrew?

Yes, because Andrew filed an appearance; therefore, he waived any objection.
No, because Andrew appeared solely to contest jurisdiction.
No, because Andrew has not yet filed his answer.
Yes, because Andrew filed a motion.

Mark and Julie, who live in Delaware, are married in Las Vegas, Nevada, and decide to honeymoon in Hawaii. They purchase airline tickets and agree to a layover in California. While switching planes in California, Mark and Julie visit a gift shop. Sam has filed an action against Mark and Julie in state court in California. Because Sam knows that the couple has a layover in California, he arranges to have them served with process in the airport. Mark and Julie are served while in the gift shop. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over the couple?

Yes, because as long as they are served with process, it doesn’t matter where they are served; the court has jurisdiction over them everywhere.
Yes, because they are voluntarily in California.
No, because they are only in California for a very short time.
No, because only the courts in Delaware have jurisdiction over Delaware residents.

ABC Corp. is incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business there. ABC Corp. manufacturers “I Love NY!” bumpers stickers and advertises and sells them in New York. Sarah, a resident of New York, purchases a bumper sticker, which she affixes to the back bumper of her car. When she later attempts to remove the bumper sticker, a large section of paint peeled off. Sarah files an action in the New York trial court against ABC Corp. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over ABC Corp.?

No, because ABC Corp. is incorporated in New Jersey.
No, because ABC Corp.’s principal place of business is in New Jersey.
Yes, because Sarah lives in New York.
Yes, because ABC Corp. has the requisite minimum contacts with New York.

ABC Corp. is incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business there. ABC Corp. manufacturers “I Love NY!” bumper stickers and advertises and sells them only in New York. Sarah, a resident of New York, purchases a bumper sticker, which she affixes to the back bumper of her car. Sarah later sells her car to Mike, who lives in California. When Mike, while in California, attempts to remove the bumper sticker, a section of paint peels off. Mike brings an action against ABC Corp. in California. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over ABC Corp.?

No, because ABC Corp. is incorporated in New Jersey.
Yes, because the bumper sticker was in California.
No, because due process is not satisfied.
Yes, because Sarah sold Mike the car.