Calder vs Jones
November 14, 2011
Calder vs Jones
This paper will discuss the questions concerning the Supreme Court case of Calder vs Jones.
The first question we were asked to answer was, “Identify of the nature of the nature of the claim files by the plaintiff.” The Respondent, Shirley Jones, who is a professional entertainer who resides and works in California and whose television career was based there, brought suit against the National Enquire in the California Supreme Court claiming she had been libeled, which by definition means a newspaper “printed slanderous statements against in an article written and edited by the petitioners in Florida and published in and by the National Enquire. In the claim she, also, sued for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The National Enquire is a national magazine having its largest circulation in California.
The second question we were asked was, “Discuss applicability of long-arm statue to National Enquire and its president.” California’s “long-arm” statue permits an assertion of jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant whenever permitted by the state and Federal Constitution. California Civ. Proc. Code Ann. 410.10 (West, 1973) provides a court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” Calder is the president and editor of the National Enquire and overseas just about every function of the publication. He also reviewed and approved the initial evaluation of the article and did the editing in its final form.
The third question we were asked to discuss has to deal with ethics and states, “Discuss ethics in attempting to avoid jurisdiction in California.” The ethics that the National Enquire and Calder attempted to use to avoid jurisdiction would have been unethical because Ms. Jones place of residence is where she works and where the Enquire attempted to ruin her name and...