Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Mississippi School of Law
Czarnetzky, John M.

I.          Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
A.  Def: court has power to enter binding j’ment against
B.   Pennoyer v. Neff
i. Ways to obtain PJ
1. In rem jurisd.: jurisd. through things
a. Attachment must be made at time law suit filed
b. Must be directly related to suit
c. Ct. can try despite ) fled
d. Use if st. ct. couldn’t get in personam
2. In personam jurisd.: jurisd. over person
a. Notice must be given though constructive notice
b. Can be obtained through voluntary appearance in ct
3. Quasi in rem jurisd.: attaching ppty to gain jurid. over person
a. Hybrid of in rem and in personam
b. Has to be attached before trial to file suit
ii. All )s are guaranteed to notice and chance to be heard—due process
1. No state can limit individual liberty w/o due process as covered in the 14th amend.
2. Right of notice
a. Notice doesn’t mean it has to be proved ) knew
b. Types of notice:
i. Serve person in state
ii. Publication
3. Process doesn’t require perfection only due process
a. Terms of decision w/respect to j’ment in personam almost guarantee that ) would receive notice—had to be personal svc. w/in state or seizure of land
b. As to in rem j’ments, the ct. allows other forms of svc. such as publication. Thus for in rem, very “scanty” notice was ok
4. Government doesn’t have ability to seize land of people it doesn’t have PJ over
5. Non –res. w/ no ppty in state can be required by state to appoint an agent to accept process thus consenting non-res. to state jurisd.
6. Implied consent: by operating auto in state, driver consents to power of that state’s cts.
iii. State sovereignty: states have exclusive power over people and ppty w/in state
1. Territorial notion of power of state government—state has no power outside state
2. Rule of service/j’ment are based on analogy to others
3. Full faith and credit: states recognition of other state documents and holdings
a. Applies only if ct. making decision had PJ and SMJ against non-resident )
4. Ct. held that direct action against non-resident (in personam) is an encroachment upon state in which ) is domiciled. However state may subject ppty w/in its boundaries owned by non-resident parties to the p’ment of demand of own citizens against them (in rem). Thus decision differentiated b/t j’ments in personam and in rem
iv. Th

uire ) to defend suit which is brought in state
i. Elacticity std.: fewer the contacts, stronger they have to be
b. Factors/test for fairness:
i. Burden on )
ii. Forum state’s interest in adjudicating disbute
iii. A’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
iv. Interstate judicial system’s interst in obtaining most efficient resolution of controversies
v. Shared interest of several states in futhering fundamental substantive social policies
c. Balancing of )’s interests against those of state
iii. Absorbing in rem-jurisd.—Shaffer v. Heitner
1. Share holder derivative suit: when corp. harmed b/c of directors and officers breach fidicuary duties, shareholder may step in to shoes of co. and bring suit against
2. Nothing in record to show ) has contact w/ DE
            P used Pennoyer’s in rem by attaching stock to ) b/c according to DE law all stock purchased from DE co. deemed to be located in DE