Case Brief #1 & 2. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson

(1) Citation 
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980).
(2) Facts
Harry and Kay Robinson purchased a vehicle in New York in 1976. The following year they were driving the vehicle to their new home in Arizona. On their way to Arizona, they were passing through Oklahoma when they were struck by a drunk driver. The collision caused the vehicle’s doors to lock and a puncture in the car’s gas tank. As a result, a fire severely burned Ms. Robinson and her children.
(3) Issue
Does Worldwide Volkswagen have sufficient “minimum contacts” with Oklahoma that would allow Oklahoma State courts to have jurisdiction?
(4) Decision
No, Oklahoma state courts do not have jurisdiction over this matter because World-Wide does not have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state.
(5) Reason 
A state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a NON-RESIDENT defendant only if there are “minimum contacts” between the defendant and the forum state. Thus, the court must evaluate whether the actions of the defendant constitute “minimum contacts.”
The defendants did not solicit business in the state of Oklahoma through salespersons or advertising reasonably calculated to reach the state. The dealership was located in New York. It employed citizens from the surrounding areas to work at its location. It did not have a location in Oklahoma. It did not pay taxes in Oklahoma. It did not try to solicit business from Oklahoma.
The fact that a vehicle is mobile and could end up in the forum state does not qualify as the defendant having minimum contacts. Despite the fact that this is foreseeable, foreseeability alone cannot provide the basis of personal jurisdiction if there are no other contacts with the forum state. 
The court shall not focus on the mere likelihood that a product will be found in a state; rather, it shall evaluate the defendant’s conduct and connection within the state. The court determined that a defendant should reasonably anticipate being brought into court there. The mere fact that a party brought the defendant’s product into a state does not meet this test. 
https://moodle(dot)nicholls(dot)edu/pluginfile.php/1044903/mod_resource/content/2/How%20to%20Brief%20a%20Case%20%231.pdf
https://moodle(dot)nicholls(dot)edu/pluginfile.php/1044904/mod_resource/content/1/How%20to%20Brief%20a%20Case%20%232.pdf
https://moodle(dot)nicholls(dot)edu/pluginfile.php/1044903/mod_resource/content/2/How%20to%20Brief%20a%20Case%20%231.pdf
Please combine BOTH case briefs and turn in both in ONE Word Document.
SECTION 2
Chapter 6: Legal Issues in International Transportation
Chapter 8: National Lawmaking Powers and the Regulation of US Trade
Chapter 9: World Trade Organization: Basic Legal Principles
Chapter 12: Imports, Customs, and Tariff Law
Chapter 1 Powerpointsfile
Chapter 2 Powerpointsfile
Chapter 3 Powerpointsfile
Chapter 4 Powerpointsfile