JURISDICTION GENERALLY
A unique feature of American jurisprudence is its emphasis on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction has been describes as “the power to declare the law” and more specifically, judicial jurisdiction has been describes as “the power of a court to render a judgment that other courts and government agencies will respect.” (YEAZELL, CIVIL PROCEDURE). The concern over jurisdiction on federal courts derives from constitutional principles of sovereignty, Federalism (a government of limited powers), due process, and the express requirements of Articles III and IV of the U.S. Constitution. The Broad constitutional framework for jurisdiction is:
Article III Section 2 – Judiciary Clause: Sets up federal courts and defines and limits their jurisdiction
Article IV Section 1 – Full Faith and Credit Clause: Requires the court s of the various states give FF & C t o the judgments of courts of the states. The SC has interpreted this to mean only those judgments for which the adjudicating court had proper jurisdiction
FF & C Statute – 28 USC § 1738: Requires federal courts to give FF&C to valid state court judgments
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: The Due Process Clause. Interpreted to require a court to have proper jurisdiction as a matter of due process in Pennoyer v. Neff.
The Erie Doctrine: A quasi-constitutional decision apparently resting on the 10th Amendment and Due Process grounds; it outlines the application of state and federal law in federal courts.
To Continue in Court You Must Have:
(1) Personal Jurisdiction – power over the person
(2) Subject Matter Jurisdiction – power to decide the controversy
(3) Venue – a proper place in which to bring the suit that bears some relationship to the parties or the controversy
(4) Survive a Transfer or dismissal on FNC
Constitutional Framework for US Litigation:
1) Constitution limits the power of the states
a. Personal jurisdiction doctrines
2) Constitution enumerates (thereby limiting) the powers of the federal government
a. Federal subject matter jurisdiction doctrines
3) Constitution requires state courts to share power with one another and with a federal judiciary
a. Erie doctrine ensures that these two court systems respect each other’s spheres of power while overlapping jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – three broad areas – POWER, CONSENT (as a substitute for power), and NOTICE. (Pennoyer Scheme)
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Whether the suit is commenced in states or federal court located in a particular state, it may only be brought in a state where the ∆ is subject to personal jurisdiction.
The court in that state must have the power to render a judgment against the ∆.
OLD SCHOOL PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877)
Background
If a ∆ refused to pay damages render in judgment against him in a court of law, the π may obtain a writ of execution from the court, which will authorize the sheriff to seize any property belonging to the ∆, sell it, and give the resulting $ to the π
Sheriff’s deed – given to the person who buys the property as evidence of title
Facts
Neff (π) attacked the jurisdiction of the Oregon Courts when they seized lands he owned in Oregon (He lived in California) without an attachment hearing, and sold the lands to Pennoyer in order to satisfy a debt sued upon by Mitchell.
AC RULING
Rules on the basis that the property was not properly attached at the outset of the lawsuit – thus was not brought under the jurisdiction of the court
USSC RULING
The USSC reasoned that based on the sovereignty of the several states, ever y state has power over persons and things within its borders, consequently, no state has power over persons and things outside its borders. Furthermore, the D/P Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that before a person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, he must be given “notice, and an opportunity to be heard”, jurisdiction is also a matter of individual liberty. Publication is insufficient notice to an out-of-state ∆, and that b/c of the territorial limits on a state’s power, it could not serve him with personal notice out of state.
PENNOYER SCHEME – POWER
the state may imply appointment of a public official
Consent – if a ∆, who is a non-resident and owns no property within the forum state, makes an appearance or otherwise consents to the jurisdiction.
Due Process Clause
Tells courts how far they can reach, must fit within the circle.
Does state have a statute that allows PJ?
If yes, then go to Constitution (Due Process)
Original Basis for PJ
∆ served in forum
Agent of ∆ is served in forum
∆ is domiciled in forum
∆ consents
Special Appearance – (Direct Attack)
The ∆ is allowed to appear before the court at the outset of the action, for the sole purpose of challenging its power to exercise PJ
Under Federal Rules, a ∆ may appear before answering the merits of the case and object to PJ
The ∆ may, unlike state, also raise other objections at the same time, without waiving the objection to PJ
In most states, if a person loses on the merits, he may appeal, claiming that the court’s conclusion of PJ was wrong
POST PENNOYER – THE ROAD TO INTERNATIONAL SHOE
In the years following Pennoyer, the rigid scheme it imposed was strained by the radical changes caused by increasing industrialization, and the consequent increase in interstate travel and commerce. Beginning in Milliken v. Meyer, the court began to chip away at the rigid scheme. In Milliken, the court held that domicile was sufficient to establish in personam jurisdiction, thus allowing domicilliaries of a state to be served out of state. Further, in a series of cases involving out-of-state motorists, the Court recognized that a motorist who entered another state was impliedly consenting to jurisdiction (Kane v. NJ; Hess v. Pawloski).
