Personal Jurisdiction
a. In Rem= the thing that is being adjudicated is within the territory of the state, that state has the power to adjudicate./Notice is not necessary because there is an assumption that owners of property know what is going on with in the property
i. You still have to go through the international Shoe test, but the land is the contact.
1. [Hanson v Denkla-the case with the trust and the will-there was personal property in FL, but FL didn’t have in rem jurisdiction because the situs (position) of the trust was in DA]
b. Quasi in rem- (you can almost never get it this way-this is pretty must gone) one which would have been in personam
i. Shaffer-
1. Fairness in relationship between
a. Property
b. Defendant
c. fairness
c. In Personam=adjudicating personal rights
i. Presence
1. Tag
a. Burnam=Scalia plurality is still tradition
2. If the person is lured in to the state by fraud, the service isn’t good.
ii. Consent
1. Hess v Pawloski-States can make statutes that you give consent if you drive your car in the state, etc.
iii. status
iv. International Shoe Standard-not based on territoriality
1. Power under the 14th=D must just have personal minimum contracts with the state, so that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair and substantial justice.” Would the maintenance of a suit reasonably be deemed
iii. Things they consider (you can usually sue a corp in any state they do business):
1. Purposeful availments-have they purposefully availed themselves to the benefits of the state?—when a corp purposefully avails itself, it has clear notice that it is subject to a suit there. It’s about the D’s voluntary acts.
a. [Hanson-D didn’t purposefully contact FL, they just had a client who moved to FL, this is not enough for jurisdiction]
Foreseeability-foreseeable to D that D’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being healed into court there.
