Select Page

Civil Procedure I
Rutgers University, Newark School of Law
Spring, Gary

Civil Procedure – Spring Outline
A.     Personal Jurisdiction – state’s power to hear a case and enforce it’s judgment on particular parties.
i.      Checklist
1.    Is there a long-arm statute that confers jurisdiction? There must be a statute (State Court)
a.       Federal Court Jurisdiction (Don’t worry about this too much)
i.      Rules typically co-exist with state rules where court is
2.    Does the federal constitution (Due Process) permit the current exercise of personal jurisdiction?
ii.      Types
1.    In Personam – operates on the person of the defendant, it created a personal debt to pay the plaintiff.
2.    In Rem/Quasi In Rem – Over property, judgment does not create personal obligation.
b.      Traditional Personal Jurisdiction – Neff Rules
i.      Pennoyer v. Neff Rules (strict rules- not really good law anymore they have been loosed and expanded)
1.    Need Consent, the defendant appears in the court
2.    Service of Process in State (STILL GOOD)
a.      (Has been allowed when person was served in airplane above state)
3.    Citizen or resident in state
4.    Consent or designated person available for service
ii.      Hess – Implied Consent
1.    Due process is not violated when there is a concept of implied consent rising from a statute. In this case, where a non-resident caused an accident in forum state. By driving in the state he has “impliedly consented” to the statute because by driving he has appointed the DMV of the state as its process server. Based on a statute, these are now common in all states.
a.      Long Arm Statutes (more detailed analysis later – statutes that are on the books to claim jurisdiction over out of state residents. If it is not enumerated state claims jurisdiction over as much as they can possibly before offending due process.
i.      Enumerated – This type of statute only claims jurisdiction over what is specifically mentioned.
c.       International Shoe – Minimum Contacts
i.       “Minimum Contacts”
1.    Court held that there should no longer be any mechanical guidelines covering personal jurisdiction.
2.    Being in a state and doing business, and enjoying benefits of a state may give rise to obligations there. In this case having a few salesmen present in the state was enough who were making sales and receiving the benefit of being in the state.
a.      “Minimum contact” factors – if these are met it does not matter where you serve t

                                                                                                                                  i.      States regulatory interest
ii.      Convenience
iii.      Public Policy
2.    Compare w/ Hanson v. Deckla (Limiting Minimum Contacts to purposeful availment) – Widow sets up trust in Delaware. She moved to Florida and received occasional interest payments there, and issued occasional orders. She died, and execution of will in Florida rose to a conflict, and the bank in Delaware was NOT subject to in personam jurisdiction in Florida.
a.      This case seemed to be decided largely based on public policy, some find it hard to reason w/ McGee
The court lays out “purposeful availment” – To have relevant contact under minimum contacts the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activates within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.