Select Page

Civil Procedure I
Temple University School of Law
Ramji-Nogales, Jaya

Ramji-Nogales, Jaya
FALL 2007

Personal Jurisdiction
I. State Statute – “Long-arm” statutes
a. Does it allow the court to exercise jurisdiction over the ∆ and/or ∆’s property?
i. Depends on State’s jurisdiction statute, and its courts’ interpretations of that statute

II. Forms of Jurisdiction
i. Pure in rem – decides ownership of property as to the whole world
ii. Quasi in rem type I – decides property ownership between the litigants
iii. Quasi in rem type II – presence of the property is the basis for the court to assert jurisdiction over the ∆, but the case concerns ∆’s personal obligations to the π. Amount π may recover limited to value of property
iv. In Personam – jurisdiction over the person to make a binding determination regarding the ∆’s personal obligations

III. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Requirements – Early Cases
a. Due Process Requirements
i. Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) – Quasi in rem type II case
1. Court holds that “every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over person and property within its territory” – Jurisdiction based upon State’s ability to exert physical control over the ∆ and/or his property.
a. When based on ∆’s property – property must be “brought under the control of the court” through attachment or some similar measure before the litigation
ii. Harris v. Balk (1905) – Quasi in rem type II
1. Debt “clings” to the debtor – is property that can be basis for jurisdiction over a non-resident creditor when debtor found within the state and debt attached
a. A won judgment against B, and A owed money to C in MD. C was able to sue A in MD by attached debt owed from B when B was found in MD.
iii. Hess v. Pawloski (1927) – In Personam
1. Court holds that Statute granting implied consent of register as agent for service of process in disputes arising from ∆’s operation of a motor vehicle in the state, by driving in Mass, is Constitutional.
iv. Milliken v. Meyer (1940) – In Personam
1. Domicile in the state alone is sufficient to bring an absent ∆ within the reaches of the state’s jurisdiction
2. Corporation is considered “present” in the state when ∆ corporation’s contact with the state is sufficient to constitute “doing business in the state”

IV. Due Process Requirements – Modern Cases – IN PERSONAM
a. Int’l Shoe (1945) – “Due Process requires only that in order to subject a ∆ to a judgment in personam if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have such minimum contracts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
1. Consider – 1) the quality and nature of the activities; 2) whether corporation “exercises the privileges of conducting activities in a state and enjoys the benefits and protections of the laws of that state”
2. Casual presence of the corporate agent or even his conduct of single or isolated items of activities in a state on the corporation’s are not enough to subject it to suit on causes of action unconnected with those activities
3. Court distinguishes between cases that are connected to the ∆’s activities in the forum state and cases that are unconnected to the ∆’s activities in the forum state – (specific v. general jurisdiction)
ii. Arising under/ Related to
1. Split in circuits
a. “But for” causal relation between ∆’s contact in forum and π’s injury needed to satisfy “arising under/ relates to”
i. “But for ∆’s ad in MA, π would not have visited Hawaii and staying in ∆’s hotel, where she slipped and injured herself”
b. Proximate Causation – Π’s claim only arises from/relates to ∆’s contacts w/ forum when ∆’s contact is proximate cause of π’s claim
i. Generally requires that the injury be a foreseeable result of the ∆’s contacts
b. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION cases – “arising from”
i. McGee (1957) – Ct upholds jurisdiction over TX insurance company who mailed reinsurance contract certificate to decedent in CA. Looked at fact that suit based on contractual relationship w/ π from forum state, π mailed pmts from CA to TX, and that CA had interest in providing redress to its citizens. Inconvenience to ∆ insufficient to conclude that CA’s jurisdiction violated Due Process
ii. Hanson (1958) – Woman creates trust w/ DE bank, then moves to FL where she dies, suit filed in FL. Court says FL does NOT have jurisdiction
1. “The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship w/ a nonresident ∆ can not satisfy the requirements of contacts w/ forum state . . . there must be some activity by which the ∆ purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state.”
iii. WWVW (1980) – Family injured in OK while driving Audi from NY (where car purchased) to Arizona. Suit involving retail dealer and regional distributor, both of whom only did business in NY, NJ, and CT.
1. Court holds that minimum contacts requires that the ∆’s contacts with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” (Only time we see foreseeability factored into Court’s inquiry)
2. Jurisdiction comports w/ due process when corporation delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.
3. Unilateral activity of π not sufficient to meet contacts requirements
iv. Keeton (1984) – Π (NY citizen) filed libel suit against Hustler magazine in NH. Court holds that plaintiff need not have minimum contacts w/ forum state for it to exercise jurisdiction of ∆. Because ∆ distributes magazines in NH and suit arises from this activity, ∆ meets minimum contacts required for NH to exercise jurisdiction over it.
v. Calder (1984) – Ct holds that CA has jurisdiction over writer & editor of defamatory article written about a CA resident (π). ∆’s intentional and allegedly tortio

suit does not arise from or relate to ∆’s contacts w/ forum state, TX must have general jurisdiction over the ∆. This requires sufficient contacts:
a. Court does not explicitly define “sufficient contacts” but notes that a corp. that has been carrying on a continuous and systematic part of its general business in the forum meets the requirements necessary for general jurisdiction.
i. Perkins – President of a Philippine mining co. maintained office in Ohio
1. Conducted business activities on behalf of company
2. Kept co. files, held directors meetings, correspondence related to business, distributed salary checks drawn on Ohio banks, engaged bank to act as a transfer agent, supervised policies dealing with corporate property in Philippines.

b. Brennan’s Dissent: argues that suit does arise from, or at least relate to, ∆’s contact w/ TX & case should be treated as specific jurisdiction case.
iii. Burnham (1990) – “Tag” transient jurisdiction upheld for nonresident def served w/ process in the forum state
1. ∆ personally served w/ process while in the state on business
a. Scalia +3 say this is part of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
2. But Brennan +3
a. Apply contacts analysis to this situation
V. Judging Min. Contacts – focus on relationship among ∆, forum, and litigation (π’s claim)
a. Nature of Contacts – extent, frequency, purposeful, tortious, intentional
b. Connection between ∆’s contact w/ forum state and π’s claim


Irregular/Casual Continuous/Systematic


Specific Jurisd (min contacts) General Jurisd (sufficient contacts)

a. Shaffer (1977) – Quasi in rem type II – Ct holds that all assertions of State court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to standards of Int’l Shoe and its progeny. Case concerned ∆’s stock in a DE corporation

Int’l Shoe