Civil Procedure Outline Fall ’08.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION:
Categories of Jurisdiction in Pennoyer
1) In personam – personal jurisdiction – whereby a court can impose a personal liability or obligation on a defendant or require a D to act or refrain from doing an act. D just has to be there
2) In rem – Declares the right of all persons to a thing. Based on the court’s jurisdiction over the thing at issue. Bind the entire world where quasi in rem only bind parties to the suit. Presence of property is enough for jurisdiction. (LAND. IN REM IS LAND)
3) Quasi in rem I – settles claims to the property on which jurisdiction is based (e.g. Foreclosure). Power over property physically situated or deemed situated in forum state. Limited to value of property that can be found and attached.
4) Quasi in rem II – seeks to obtain a personal judgment on a claim unrelated to the property on which the jurisdiction is based. Recovery limited to the value of property that can be found and attached w/in the state boundary. (type in Pennoyer)
Power (Pennoyer v. Neff):
Neff brought suit in federal court to recover possession of land purchased at a sheriff’s sale by Pennoyer and this sale was made in execution of a default judgment against Neff in an earlier case based on PJ) BUT Neff was a non resident and was not personally served w/ process. Service by publication in Oregon newspapers was deemed adequate in the original suit and Neff is claiming here that that court did not have jurisdiction. Pennoyer is appealing the federal circuit court’s upholding of Neff’s claim. Neff wins. Narrow definition of state power, restricted to borders.
Domicile (Milliken v. Myer):
– Rule: responsibilities of citizenship arise out of the relationship to the state which domicile creates; not dissolved by mere absence from the state
– State citizenship or domicile is usually defined as the place where the person resides and intends to remain for the indefinite future; possible for person to be resident of state w/out establishing a domicile in that state (e.g. College student).
Consent (Hess v. Pawloski):
Special Appearance: D can appear in court specifically to challenge jurisdiction without consenting to jurisdiction. If D doesn’t raise jurisdiction at beginning, D can never raise it.
Implied consent
o Hess v Pawloski – D resident of PA got in accident in Mass and P sued in Mass for personal injuries. No personal service was made and no attachment. Mass had a statute that nonresidents gave implicit consent by driving on roads. D challenges statute. S.C. says that state has right to control conduct on its roads, also it provided a benefit that D took advantage of. (Break from Pennoyer Court)
o Carnival v. Shute- P. injured on cruise. Back of ticket said all claims must be filed in Florida. Shute ordered tickets over phone, d
ction
General Jurisdiction*
Sporadic and Casual
Specific Jurisdiction
No Jurisdiction *
*Most Contested
General Jurisdiction: Continuous and Systematic contact with a state provides jurisdiction in cases where the cause of action is unrelated to that contact.
Specific Jurisdiction: Sporadic and Casual contact provides jurisdiction for cases where the cause of action is related to the contact w/ the state
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (General Jurisdiction):
· D filed wrongful death actions in Texas state court b/c of helicopter crash in Peru.
· Helicopteros is Colombian corp. w/ principal place of business in Colombia.
· Helicopteros’ contacts w/ Texas
Negotiation session w/ Consorcio
Purchased helicopters, etc.
Training pilots
Received checks drawn upon Texas bank
SC Finds No general jurisdiction .
· Rule: Continuous and systematic general business contacts must be present to support an assertion of general jurisdiction
· Not continuous and systematic … purchases and related trips not sufficient for a state’s assertion of jurisdiction, even at regular intervals
