Select Page

Business Associations/Corporations
University of Iowa School of Law
Stensvaag, John-Mark

Civil Procedure
Professor Stensvaag
Spring 2003

I.                     Introduction
ü       Concerned w/ process of commencing, litigating & deciding cases
ü       Facts of law brought together to reach decision
A.      Sources of Fed Procedure Law
1.        US Const
a.        Provides for est of some fed cts
b.       Provides that state cts must operate w/I certain parameters (due process, full faith & credit clause)
2.        Fed Statutes
a.        Enacted by Cong
b.       Est inferior fed cts & limit powers to hear certain types of cases
3.        Fed Rules of Civ Pro
a.        Starts w/ R
b.       Not statutes!!
4.        Local Rules of various Fed Cts
a.        Govern mundane matters: where/when argue motions, # of copies, etc
b.       First thing to look @ in practice
5.        Judicial opinions

II.                   Finding the Proper Court
v                                                                              Must have proper PJ, SMJ & Venue
v                                                                              The ct you are in can determine whether you win or lose; up to Π’s atty
A.      Personal Jurisdiction
v      Geographical matter determined by whether cts in a particular state can bind someone
v      2 moments SupCo got PJ right: Rush & Shaffer
v      3 reqmts for PJ
(1)     long-arm statute
(2)     statute must not violate DP
(3)     notice rsbly calculated to reach Δ
1.         Traditional basis
à Pennoyer v. Neff: Π says he has title to land, Δ says is his via sheriff’s deed, Π never actually served in orig suit b/c was non-res of state & DN appearà is void action, fraud & oppression to uphold & enforce judgment obtained ex parte HELD: prop of state m/b brought under control of ct @ beg of suit so QIR gimmick was defective; attachment: constitutionally req’d when no svc of process b/c land could be seized
a.     3 actors: Mitchell (Neff’s atty), Neff (not OR res), Pennoyer
b.       2 cases: OR state ct: Mitchell seeking fees of $300 against client Neff, M wins (judgment 2/1866) b/c Neff never showed up; Neff sells share of land to pay off M, sells to Pennoyer through sheriff’s sale for $341.60
i.         M DN use in personam in case 1; DN use these methods either
1)       presence: be found w/i state as proved through “service of process”; transient juris is presence as well (flight over state counts as presence – Grace v. MacArthur)
2)       domicile: being a resid

uasi in rem “gimmick”: using presence of Δ’s prop in state as gimmick to bring suit in another matter; recovery can’t exceed asset [not good law accd to Shaffer & Rush] 2.        Expansion
v      Background to Hess
a.     SupCo would invent fictions to go against Pennoyer while acting faithful
i.         non-res motorist: impossible to get in personam or in rem
iv.            non-res business: in both of these so must invent fictions
v.            consent is what cts used to assert juris (actual or implied)
b.       Kane v. NJ: requires motorists to sign consent @ border to allow suits in NJ & if motorists won’t consent to PJ, state can exclude motorist
c.        Business/corp: state can exclude unless consent to PJ in advance (beginning of unraveling occurred under this)