Civil Procedure I – Outline
I. Types of jurisdiction over persons and property
A. In Personam – jurisdiction over the person
B. In Rem – jurisdiction over property (power to seize and hold)
C. Quasi-in-rem – jurisdiction over a person, based on the person’s property within court’s jurisdiction
II. Personal Jurisdiction
A. Traditional Bases – Pennoyer v. Neff – court determines that person must be served with process in the state, or by appearance in state, otherwise violation of due process.
there were a few basic ways to obtain jurisdiction over a person at this time…
1. Consent – a person could consent to jurisdiction by answering the complaint (showing up to defend themselves).
2. Citizenship – a person who was a citizen of a state fell under that state’s jurisdiction.
3. Temporary Presence – in a state allows for personal service and jurisdiction over said party.
B. Expansion of the Bases – after Pennoyer most states found additional methods in which consent could be found…
a. corporations would consent to jurisdiction by appointing an agent for service of process (some states forced corporations to do this if they wanted to do business in the state.
b. Hess v. Pawloski – driver could consent to jurisdiction by using states roads.
C. Modern Approach to Personal Jurisdiction – established in International Shoe – test of minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice.
1. Minimum Contacts – to determine if contacts are sufficient it is necessary to take into account whether the contacts were related to the cause of action, and whether they were of a continuous and systematic nature or more of a sporadic and casual nature. Courts also look to whether the availment by the defendant was purposeful or coincidental – it must be purposeful.
related + continuous = jurisdiction
related + sporadic = specific
not related + continuous = general
not related + sporadic = no jurisdiction
no contacts = no jurisdiction
a. even when only one contact exists it i
More on Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction…
Note: quasi in rem could be garnishment of wages, stocks, land or otherwise – any type of personal property.
1. In Shaffer v. Heitner (case in which plaintiff went after Greyhound shareholders by sequestering shares since Greyhound is a Delaware Corp.) Court determined that to proceed against a persons property is essentially to proceed against them, therefore minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice will be applied.
a. quasi in rem – subject to test of minimum contacts and FP&SJ.
b. in rem – property is at heart of issue therefore minimum contacts will be met.
G. Reach of Federal District Courts
1. Basically the District courts have jurisdiction over anyone whom the states would have general jurisdiction, or if authorized by a statute of U.S.