Civil Procedure Outline (Ellington)
II. Jurisdiction over Parties or their Property
A. Before Pennoyer v. Neff
Capron v. Van Noorden – (1804) – P brought tort action against D in NC federal court. P appealed from jury’s verdict for D, alleging that trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pleadings, although identifying D as a NC citizen, were silent as to citizenship of P
a. SC reversed because federal court jurisdiction would only exist if Powers of diverse citizenship of D, but diversity had not been demonstrated
b. Case exemplifies paramount importance attached to limitations on federal court jurisdiction
c. Jurisdiction based on Article III § 2 of Constitution – The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, laws of US, treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the US shall be a party; to all controversies between 2 or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and between a state or citizen thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.
d. If jurisdiction had been upheld, it would have been stepping on powers of the state, which was a big issue at this time
e. This case presented the “it doth not appear as it ought to have done” language
f. Marbury v. Madison had enabled the SC the principle of judicial review, but Marshal is saying that they do not have jurisdiction to do this here
A. Traditional Basis for Jurisdiction
1. Types of jurisdiction
a. In personam- the court may render a judgment against a person by virtue of his presence or citizenship within the state’s territory.
b. In rem – the court may determine the status of a property located within its territory, and the determination is binding to all interest holders (property is at issue)
c. Quasi in rem – the court may render judgment against a nonresident with recovery limited to the value of property within its jurisdiction if property is attached at outset. (subject matter of case does not have to be property)
1. Pennoyer v. Neff-(1877)-Mitchell brought action against Neff, a CA resident for attorney fees, notice published, Neff didn’t appear, default judgment, court attached land owned by Neff to satisfy judgment, land sold to Pennoyer, Neff challenges in collateral attack in suit against Pennoyer.
a. SC upheld Neff’s claim on 2 interrelated principles that served as basis for state jurisdiction:
1. Every state has sovereignty over all persons and property within its territory.
2. A state cannot exercise power over persons and property outside of its territory.
b. Service has to be served in in personam suits within the state.
c. Full Faith & Credit power under Article 4 provides that states must recognize judicial findings of other states. This case is an exception because D can show lack of validity in that finding.
a. Due Process of the 14th amendment limits the jurisdiction of a court. To not violate, state must:
1. Either present service within state
2. Or have a voluntary appearance by D-consent
3. Or property must be attached at the outset-quasi in rem-jurisdiction must be determined at outset
4. Or present service on an agent within the state
3. Grace v. MacArthur-(1959)-Court upheld Arkansas jurisdiction when service made on a plane over Arkansas
4. Blackmer v. US-(1
Judge is taking into account the relatedness of the corporate acts with the forum. Low level of acts with high relatedness with cause = jurisdiction. High level of acts with less relatedness with cause = jurisdiction. This is the nexus of the acts with the lawsuit.
e. P. 77 – most important paragraph in civil procedure
f. Two prong test for jurisdiction:
1. Does D have minimum contacts with forum?
i. Its acts have been continuous and systematic, and given rise to the cause
ii. Sporadic or casual acts of D in forum, or his single, isolated act there, may not be enough if acts unrelated to cause
iii. Continuous activity of D in forum may allow causes unrelated to forum activity-general jurisdiction
iv. Sporadic or a single act in forum may suffice under certain circumstances if causes arises out of his acts-specific jurisdiction
i-substantial activity + closely related
iii-substantial activity + unrelated
iv-low level activity + closely related
ii-low, or no contacts + unrelated
1. Is jurisdiction consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?
i. Relative convenience of forum to parties
ii. Interest of state in regulating type of activity in which D is engaging
iii. Relative convenience of parties to suit in alternative forum
f. Reasonableness to suit, you ask if it looks right-aesthetically
g. Rules of Civil Procedure §302-Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-
