I. Personal Jurisdiction: Constitutional Limits
A. General principles
1. A fed court in a state has the same personal jurisdiction as the state court there does, with a few exceptions
a) FRCP 4k limits the jurisdictional reach of federal courts to the equivalent jurisdiction of the state courts where the federal court is located.
b) Exceptions in FRCP 4k)
1) the 100-mile bulge rule–can get jurisdiction over another defendant if he/she located within 100 miles of the federal court initially filed in
2) federal interpleader under USC section 1335;
3) when authorized by federal statute.
4) international cases–when the defendant is outside the USA–it gives federal jurisdiction if there is no state that has sufficient contact to establish jurisdiction.
5) These exceptions are based on notion of “national contacts” rather than state contacts.
B. Pennoyer v. Neff: Constitutional Limits of Personal Jurisdiction
1. General Principles
a. constitutional provisions–Due Process (14th amend.) and the Full Faith and Credit clause (Article 4).
b. judgment entered without jurisdiction is not entitled to full faith and credit, and thus subject to collateral attack
c. assertion of jurisdiction can be challenged under Due Process clause; so, jurisdiction is now a constitutional issue, rather than a common-law issue.
2. Bases for personal jurisdiction
a. Presence in the jurisdiction
b. Consent—express or implied (out-of-state motorist case)
c. Domicile in the jurisdiction
d. In-Rem = jurisdiction extends and is limited to the real property in the jurisdiction. If real property does not fully satisfy the judgment, must bring another suit with jurisdiction.
e. Quasi In-Rem = jurisdiction extends to non-real property in the jurisdiction.
3. Exceptions to Pennoyer v. Neff
4. Collateral Attack
a. Collateral attack: you can choose not to respond to suit b/c of the apparent absence of personal jurisdiction, and then challenge it later on that basis. But, what is the risk? Hypothetical: sued in another state,
ice must be satisfied to establish personal jurisdiction
2. Issue of Minimum Contacts
a. Two factors
1) Extent of def’s minimum contacts with the state
2) The connection between the def’s activity in the state and the claim
b. Four possible combinations
1) continuous and systematic activity in the state, and a claim arising from that activity = always personal jurisdiction
2) casual or isolated in the state, and a claim not related to that activity = always no personal jurisdiction
3) continuous and substantial activity in the forum but a claim unrelated to the activity = sometimes personal jurisdiction
4) casual and isolated activity in the forum and a claim arising from that activity = sometimes personal jurisdiction
c. Specific versus General Jurisdiction
general jurisdiction = if there was a high enough level of contact,