Case # 1 Assignment

Student’s Name

Institution Affiliation

Course Name and Code

Professor’s Name

Date

Case # 1 Assignment

Case # 1: Critical Legal Thinking Cases

Based on this case, the defendant, Live Siri Art, Inc., is not subject to a lawsuit in New York. In the US, any state’s courts must have personal jurisdiction over the defendants in order to bring a lawsuit against an entity or a person. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s ability to rule on the party being sued in a case. According to the US Constitution, a party must have at least minimal contact with the forum where the court is located before the court may exercise its authority over that party.

Unlike general jurisdiction, if a court in New York has (i) long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant under CPLR 302, and (ii) the exercise of that jurisdiction is consistent with due process, the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary defendant (Quinn, 2012). If either the constitutional or statutory prerequisite is missing, the action cannot proceed. To obtain long-arm jurisdiction, the defendant must have a sufficient connection with the state (Nussbaum, 2014). In the presented case, Live Siri Art, Inc., which is a resident of California, does not have the requisite minimum contacts with New York. Therefore, a court in New York cannot obtain long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant under CPLR 302. Thus, Live Siri Art, Inc. cannot be subject to a lawsuit.

Case # 2: Ethics Cases

The rights guaranteed to the Ojibwe in the 1837 treaty are still valid and enforceable. Based on the presented case, the treaty signed in 1837 was not terminated. A treaty allows for one of the parties to terminate it by giving notice, usually after a set amount of time has passed after the notification was given (Helfer, 2018). Since Minnesota did not notify the Ojibwe Indians about the treaty termination when Minnesota entered the Union in 1858, this means that the treaty is still valid and enforceable. Naturally, treaties may also be dissolved by the parties’ consent or a party’s breach. In this case, there is no parties’ consent or breach; thus, the treaty is still valid and enforceable.

By declaring the Ojibwe’s hunting, fishing, and gathering rights invalid, the state of Minnesota failed to act ethically. This is because ethically the two parties should have mutually agreed to terminate the treaty. Also, the state of Minnesota should not have terminated the treaty without prior notice to Ojibwe Indians. If at all the treaty did not contain any provisions concerning withdrawal, termination, or denunciation, it is constitutionally accepted that the state of Minnesota could withdraw from the treaty unilaterally. However, even under such circumstances, the state of Minnesota should have notified the Ojibwe Indians prior to the termination.

References

Helfer, L. R. (2018). Treaty Exit and Intra-Branch Conflict at the Interface of International and Domestic Law.

Nussbaum, R. D. (2014). The Shortcomings of New York’s Long-Arm Statute: Defamation in the Age of Technology. John’s L. Rev., 88, 175.

Quinn, F. J. (2012). CPLR § 302 (b): Jurisdiction Over a Non-Resident in an Equitable Distribution Action Following a Foreign Divorce Will Be Controlled by the Matrimonial” Long-Arm” Statute . St. John’s Law Review, 60(3), 13.