Courts and Alternative
Answer to Critical Analysis
QUESTION IN THE FEATURE
Insight into Ethics—Critical Thinking—Insight into the Ethical Environment (Page 29)
Now that the United States Supreme Court is allowing unpublished decisions to form persuasive precedent in federal courts, should state courts follow? Why or why not? Yes, because categorizing some decisions, unpublished or otherwise, as not establishing precedent is arguably unconstitutional. No, because such decisions are often less significant or may set “bad” precedents and have not traditionally been regarded as establishing precedent.
Answers to Questions
AT THE ENDS OF THE CASES
Case 2.1—Questions (Page 32)
1A. WHAT ARE THE FACTORS THAT THE COURT LOOKED AT IN DETERMINING WHETHER MINIMUM CONTACTS EXISTED BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA? THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATED THAT NORTH CAROLINA COURTS “LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER MINIMUM CONTACTS EXIST: (1) THE QUANTITY OF THE CONTACTS, (2) THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE CONTACTS, (3) THE SOURCE AND CONNECTION OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION TO THE CONTACTS, (4) THE INTEREST OF THE FORUM STATE, AND (5) THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES. AFTER EXAMINING ALL OF THESE FACTORS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD “SUFFICIENT MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NORTH CAROLINA TO JUSTIFY THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER [THE] DEFENDANT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.”
2A. Why did the court state that the convenience of the parties was not “determinative” in this case? The Court of Appeals of North Carolina pointed out that litigation between parties to interstate transactions “inevitably involves inconvenience to one of the parties.” Here, said the court, it would be just as inconvenient for the plaintiff to litigate in the defendant’s state as it would be for the defendant to litigate in North Carolina. Because the inconvenience to the...