Civil Procedure Outline
I. Territorial jurisdiction – the authority of a court to engage in binding adjudication over a person (in
personam jur.) or a thing (in rem jur.) – this is a waivable right
A. In rem jur.:
1) true in rem jur. involves establishment of property rights against everybody
2) quasi in rem jur. settles the property rights of specific persons – not property rights “against the
world.”
a. Type I quasi in rem jur. involves a dispute over the property itself between specific persons
b. Type II quasi in rem jur. involves the establishment of rights to property between specific
persons in which the underlying dispute is unrelated to the property. (This would have been the
case in Pennoyer if the property in question had been attached prior to the judgment; this is
very rare today)
1) in this case, the property in dispute comes under the control of the ct. through attachment,
and the def. can defend the claim or ignore it and lose the property through a default
judgment
B. Personal Jur. can be exercised by states on the basis of domicile, consent, physical presence (to
receive process), and through the minimum contacts standard. Such jur. is based on the def.’s
voluntary relation to the forum.
1) Unjustifiable assertion of personal jur. is a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amend.
a. Due process requires 2 things for states in exercising personal jur. over out of state residents:
1. An adequate connection between the def. and the state to ensure fairness
a) adequate connection between the def. and the state can be satisfied through minimum
contacts, domicile, physical presence to receive process in the forum, and consent.
(Jur. over an out of state def. must also be proper under the state’s long arm statute.)
2. Proper notice designed to provide an out of state def. with adequate notice that a suit has
been filed against him. Note: For notice to be proper, it must satisfy both the applicable
statutory provisions as well as the requirements of due process.
a) In Mullane, the Supreme Ct. held that the constitution requires notice that is reasonable
under all the circumstances. Hence, if the pl. can ascertain the def.’s address, then mere
publication is not adequate.
b) Federal service of process can be accomplished through the following:
1) personal service
2) at the def.’s dwelling or usual abode and left with a person of suitable age and
discretion
3) an agent appointed to accept process
4) any method that is allowed by the state in which the federal ct. sits OR where
service is made
5) mail (2 copies sent to with a request that the def. return a waiver of service)
a. the advantages to the def. of waiving process in this manner are that he will have
60 days rather than the usual 20 days to answer the complaint if waives the service
of process. Also, if the def. doesn’t waive process, then the pl. can have the def.
pay for the costs of serving process.
c) In the Greene case, the Supreme Ct. held that notice left on the door of a person’s
dwelling was insufficient to meet the requirements of due process in light of the fact
that it was known that children were known to pull notices off of doors. (Mail would
have been the appropriate method.)
2) 2 kinds of personal jur.:
a. general jur. – when the def.’s (such as a corporation) contacts within the state are continuous
and substantial enough to where one can litigate any suit in the cts. of that forum regardless of
whether or not the dispute arises out of such contacts
1. general personal jur. arises with respect to corporations only when the def. corporation’s
activities in a forum state are so substantial and continuous that it should expect to be
subject to suit there on any claim and would not suffer inconvenience from defending there;
this means that the corporation is conducting primary rather than merely secondary activities
within the forum state
a. traditional indica of general jur. for a corporation include having offices in the forum,
incorporation in the forum, headquarters in the forum, etc.
2. general personal jur. arises with respect to individuals through domicile or physic
tacts with a forum state that it would be fair to require him to return and defend a
suit.
a) the minimum contacts test applies to individuals as well as corporations
b) the minimum contacts analysis focuses on the time when the def. acted, not the time of
the suit
c) the pl.’s contacts are not relevant to the minimum contacts consideration, but they are
relevant to the fairness/reasonableness factors, and they are relevant to venue.
3) a def. does not have to a commit an act within the state in order to have minimum contacts
with the state. If a def. commits an out of state act that he knows will have harmful effects
within the state, then he would be subject to personal jur. – this is called the effects test.
4) Schaeffer extended the minimum contacts test for type II quasi in rem suits as well (true in
rem suits and type I quasi in rem suits involve property within the state, and the property is
the subject of the dispute; so, the presence of the property in dispute is almost always
sufficient to establish jur. over these cases w/o any application of a minimum contacts test)
5) The Hanson v. Denckla case held that in order to establish minimum contacts, there has to
be some purposeful availment by the def. of the privilege of conducting activities in the
forum state, which is sufficient to cause the def. to reasonably anticipate the possibility of
being brought into ct. in the forum state.
a) taking advantage of the benefits and protection of the laws of a state (ex. – driving on a
state’s highways) demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts to establish jur.
6) In Burger King, the Supreme Ct. also held that in addition to minimum contacts, the
