Excellent excellent excellent thorough explanation, especially on the reasonableness factors. Thanks!!

You're simply an extremely smart woman with a beautiful voice.

@JDsimplified

Ай бұрын

@@TheSaintlo Awe! Thank you. I hope the lesson was valuable to your studies.

Great explanation

@JDsimplified

6 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

THANK YOUUUU!! By far the best video on this topic. How do I access them all?

@JDsimplified

9 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

🔥🤓

This is great 👍 reviewing Civ Pro as a 1L

@JDsimplified

9 ай бұрын

Every time I get these comments, I smile for hours. So glad you find my vids to be a value-add to your learning experience.

@yeahaight3495

9 ай бұрын

@@JDsimplified Your videos will serve as the basis for my outline, and I’m going to share your channel with friends! Thank you so much for dedicating the time and effort it took to make these!

When you really think about it, how does the 2021 Ford case not overrule the precedent in WorldWide Volkswagon v. Woodson? They are pretty similar fact patterns with opposite holdings. I just don’t see how what Ford did was substantially more of a purposeful availment than what WorldWide Volkswagon did. Pretty subtle at best imho.

@JDsimplified

8 ай бұрын

Hi! The Supreme Court actually relied on the Worldwide Volkswagen case to support its decision in Ford. You are right that these two are so similar, and both address purposeful availment. However, Ford conceded that it had contacts within Montana and Minnesota. The plaintiffs in Ford brought their vehicles to the forum, just like the Robinsons did in World-Wide Volkswagen, true. The difference in the Ford case is that Ford had substantial contacts within the forum, whereas VW did not have any contact with Oklahoma (the forum state in that case). Specifically, the Ford Court considered the billboards, commercials, advertisements, and direct mail which were seen or circulated within Minnesota and Montana. Also note that Ford didn’t consider the reasonableness factors. Hope this clarifies it! Thanks for watching!

Does anyone know where I can get the outline she provides? Thank you!

way better than barbri

@JDsimplified

Ай бұрын

Awee! Thank you. So glad you found it helpful.

SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SERVICE OF PROCESS IS THE SAME THING?

@JDsimplified

2 күн бұрын

@@WhatWhat-ot5nr Service of process is the legal procedure that involves delivering a summons and a copy of a complaint to a defendant, which are the documents that initiate a lawsuit. The summons informs the defendant of the case against them, and the complaint details the allegations of wrongdoing. The delivery of these documents is called service of process.

where is min contact for PJ?

@JDsimplified

Ай бұрын

In this lecture. You need to watch the whole thing; lol. I promise the lecture gets better.

THE STATE OF STATES are corporations. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Inc. Not the same as The State of Nevada or Nevada State.

BETTER THAN BARBRI

@JDsimplified

8 ай бұрын

Awe! 🥹 thank you! It means a lot! I’m going to post supplemental justification in the next few days.

A State which is not a living breathing woman or man cannot be sovereign!! This is not correct....