Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Illinois School of Law
Stancil, Paul J.

v Personal Jurisdiction- the ability of a court to exercise control or power over a person or thing or entity
Ø Only concerned with the personal jurisdiction over D, as P consents to the court’s jurisdiction by filing suit there.
Ø If no PJ over D, then any order or judgment will not be binding because it is a violation of that party’s Right to Due Process
Ø Two traditional categories of Personal Jurisdiction: In Personam and In Rem
§ In Personam- Jurisdiction over D herself
·         In Personam jurisdiction is obtained by serving D personally with process
·         If PJ exists, then the judgment binds D personally
§ In Rem- Jurisdiction over a particular item of property owned by a party
·         True In Rem: Main purpose is to adjudicate competing legal interests in property
¨       Examples: quieting title to land or adjudicating a mortgage foreclosure
·         Quasi In Rem: Action brought for purposes other than determining competing rights to property
¨       Type I: If claim arises out of or is related to the property
¨       Type II: The claim is unrelated to the property; the property mainly serves as an asset to satisfy judgment entered against the owner (such as in Pennoyer)
Ø This was severely limited by Shaffer
¨       In Rem jurisdiction is seized by attaching the property in question
¨       If In Rem jurisdiction exists, then judgment only affects the property and is limited to that value
Ø The Origins
§ Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877)- When does a state have jurisd. over an out-of-state D?
·         Introduces 3 main concepts of jurisdiction
¨       1) Power- power of the state or other jurisd. (fed) over D or his property
¨       2) Consent- If you consent to jurisd., then it doesn’t matter
¨       3) Notice- some sort of service of process
·         What came out of Pennoyer?
¨       State has exclusive jurisd. over persons and property within it’s borders
¨       Judgments in personal w/o personal service shall not be upheld
¨       Judgments in rem w/ constructive service may be upheld (the seizure of the property is enough)
¨       Full Faith & Credit Clause does not apply if the court rendering the judgment did not have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter
·         Oregon could have obtained jurisd. over Neff in the (original) Mitchell case by…
¨       1) Appearance- Neff showing at the hearing
¨       2) Presence- if he had been served with notice in person while in the state
¨       3) Pre-suit attachment of property within the state (the judgment could’ve only been for that value)
·         What are exceptions to Pennoyer?
¨       1) Determination of the status of a citizen, such as in a divorce, etc.
¨       2) Business exception (implied consent if you want to do business there)
¨       3) Contractual (explicit consent to resolve disputes in a certain forum)
·         If you are going to challenge PJ:
¨       1) File a pre-trial motion challenging PJ
¨       2) Answer the lawsuit, including lack of PJ as an affirmative defense
Ø Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power
§ Redefining Constitutional Power
·         International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
¨       Extended reach of jurisdiction by allowing state to exercise jurisd. over D who is not present in the state
¨       Replaced Pennoyer’s strict geographical analysis with one that focused on a person’s connections with the state
Ø “certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’”
Ø if you have the privilege of doing business in a place then you should be prepared to defend yourself there
Ø Described the relationship b/w International Shoe and WA to be:
§ 1) Systematic and Continuous
§ 2) Neither irregular nor casual
§ 3) Large amount of business
§ 4) Enjoyed protection of WA state laws
¨       Introduces a sort of continuum between the amount of contacts D has with a forum and the amount of jurisdiction that forum would have
Ø Continuous and systematic business may expose that D to general jurisd, whereas fewer contacts may only expose D to specific jurisd. (claim must arise out of those contacts)
¨       Ruling leaves open the question as to how this would apply to individuals
¨       Also, the terms “fair play and substantial justice” are pretty vague- concurring opinion says so
·         McGee v. International Life Insurance, 355 U.S. 220 (1957)
¨       McGee, in CA, owned a life insurance policy from a TX company. His paperwork was sent to him there, he mailed his premium checks from there. Claimed was filed b/c insurance company refused to pay due to suicide- the claim arose from the contacts.
¨       The insurance policy established a “substantial connection” with CA and thus had PJ
·         Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958)
¨       Lady established a trust with a DE trustee, then moved to FL. 
¨       Her unilateral move to FL did not establish contacts in FL b/c they had no choice in the matter
¨       There must be some act by which the company purposefully availed themselves of the forum
§ Absorbing In Rem Jurisdiction
·         Shaffer v. Heitner , 433 U.S. 186 (1977)
¨       A stockholder sued individual officers of Greyhound in DE by way of attaching their stocks in the company, which was located in DE. The officers themselves had nothing to do with DE.
¨       ALL jurisdiction issues are now going to be based on the Minimum Contacts test set out in Shoe
v Does not totally do away with in rem jurisdiction, but the significance of the property is now an issue- the property is just another contact to be weighed in a quasi in rem type I
v Specific Jurisdiction: The Modern Cases
Ø World-Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)
§ NY resident purchases car from NY dealer, then got in an accident in OK. Sued Seaway (the dealer in NY), World-Wide Volkswagon (the regional dist.), Volkswagon of America, and Audi in OK
§ Volkswagon of America and Audi did not challenge PJ b/c they knew that they had con

ct to jurisdiction for claim arising from that contact
Ø Minimum Contacts Test
§ Contacts: Minimum Contacts Test involves two steps:
·         1) Contacts (Purposeful Availment from WW Volkswagon & Denckla)
¨       court determines if there are any contacts between D and forum. If there are none, the analysis stops, and there is no PJ. If there are, then the court determines whether the claim arose from those contacts.
¨       A contact only counts if it is the result of purposeful activity, or more recently stated, as the purposeful Availment of the benefits and protections of forum law
·         2) Fairness (5-factor test developed in WW Volkswagon and tested in Asahi)
¨       a. Burden on D- not only the distance that D must travel, but other circumstances as well
¨       b. Interest of State- if parties are from state or dispute affects the state
¨       c. Interest of P- residency or convenience; availability of evidence or witnesses
¨       d. Efficient resolution- it’s inefficient if multiple parties must be split up and litigated separately.
¨       e. Furthering social policy- alternate forum does not recognize claim; usually when foreign courts
¨       Note: Lack of jurisdiction rarely defeats jurisdiction but it happens (Asahi)
v General Jurisdiction- D is subject to jurisdiction for all claims- even those w/o any connection to the forum
Ø International Shoe says that for General Jurisdiction to attach, the required contacts would need to be “systematic and continuous”
Ø Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining, 342 U.S. 437 (1952)
§ Phillipino company with all mines, etc. located there. P sued D in OH for failure to deliver stock certificates, etc.. At the time, Benguet had to leave Phillipines b/c of WW2, and the President of the company was doing payroll, bank accounts, etc. in OH where he lived
§ SC says that Benguet carried on “continuous and systematic supervision of the necessarily limited wartime activities of the company” while in OH and this was enough
Ø Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1983)
§ Helicopter crash was in Peru; Colombian company sued in TX
§ Helicopter was purchased in TX and some training was done there
§ This did not constitute “systematic and continuous” contacts with TX
Ø Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990)
§ Divorce case, wife moved to CA while husband stayed in NJ
§ Husband was in CA on business and visited kids. Was served with divorce papers in CA.