Jurisdiction over the Parties or their Property
v Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction
Ø In Personam traditional bases
§ Presence – D served w/ process while in forum (gives general jurisdiction)
§ D’s agent served in the forum
§ D is domiciled in the forum (gives general jurisdiction)
§ D consents to jurisdiction (D can waive P.J.)
Ø Pennoyer v. Neff – SCOTUS 1877
§ In Mitchell v. Neff case, Mitchell didn’t attach the property prior to the case for debt. Mitchell served by publication. Neff didn’t show up. Mitchell got default judgment. Sheriff seized land. Mitchell sold to Pennoyer. Neff sued him and won.
§ States do not have P.J. over nonresidents who are not within the phys. boundaries of the state
§ Where the object of the action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the parties, service by publication against nonresidents is ineffective to confer jurisdiction on the court
§ For a court to exercise power over property w/in its boundaries, it must attach the property prior to commencement of the suit
Ø Blackmer v. United States – SCOTUS 1932
§ United States has jurisdiction in personam over absent citizens – Citizen owes government duty to attend its courts and give testimony when properly summoned
Ø Milliken v. Meyer – SCOTUS 1940
§ WY domicilary sued WY domiciliary who was residing in CO with personal service in CO. D didn’t appear, default judgment entered. SCOTUS affirmed.
§ Domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent defendant within the reach of the state’s jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment by means of appropriate substituted service
Ø Adam v. Saenger – SCOTUS 1938
§ Prior consent, whether express or implied, to the jurisdiction of a court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on that court in a subsequent counterclaim.
§ A party that brings a suit in a court impliedly consents to be a party in a counterclaim regardless of domicile
v Expanding the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction
Ø Hess v. Palawski- SCOTUS 1927
§ MA non-resident motorist statute: In advance of driving on a MA Hwy. state requires appointment of an in state agent for the purposes of service. By driving on Hwy, non-resident D impliedly consents to service upon state agent and for substituted service to him. Implicit consent to jurisdiction over his person
§ Court can get P.J. via substituted service (mail) in instances involving accidents on its hwys.
§ Expands consent to implied consent – so it is still consistent w/ Pennoyer
§ Cites Kane v. NJ – States can exclude non-residents from using their hwys until they formally appoint an agent. Hess extends this by not requiring actual appointment
Ø Flexner v. Farson – SCOTUS 1919
§ State has no power to provide that nonresident individuals, in suits growing out of their business transacted within the State through a local agent, shall be bound by process served upon him after the agency is at an end; and a judgment against a firm of nonresidents, based upon such service, is void
· State can’t prevent a person from doing business in the state
· Implied consent concept/substituted service from Hess doesn’t extend to corporations & business activities yet
v A New Theory of Personal Jurisdiction
Ø International Shoe v. Washington – SCOTUS 1945
§ WA sues DE corp for taxes owed related to sales activities in WA. ISC says it wasn’t doing business in state
§ If D is not present in the forum, P.J. is established if D has such minimum contacts with the forum that exercise of jurisdiction do
ave to go to TX to sue)
¨ Service no longer required in forum state, critical thing is that D learn of the action (not where they learn)
§ Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp – IL S.C. 1961
· 3P bought D’s product, put it in another product and then sold to P. Product malfunctioned and inured P
· Nelson v. Miller (cited in Gray said a single tortious act committed in the state is enough to confer jurisdiction)
· IL Long Arm = P can sue if D “commits a tortious act within the state”
¨ State S.C. held that a tortious act is committed where the last event necessary to the harm took place
· This case may have been invalidated by WWVW – unless D expected that they would be purchased by consumers in the forum state
§ Green v. Advance Ross Electronics Corp. – IL S.C. 1981
· IL S.C. didn’t give jurisdiction to a company with HQ in IL who wanted to sue a TX D – who had once been a president of one of its affiliates. P wanted to sue D for breach of fiduciary duty, the affects of which were felt in IL
· Court said that the IL Long Arm statute “commits a tortious act” language didn’t cover this type of action
§ Feathers case “commits a tortuous act”
· NY court refused to give jurisdiction over tortious act of non-resident. Defined tortious act as the place where negligence occurred not where injury occurred (contrary to Gray)
Hanson v. Denckla – SCOTUS 1958 (Justice Warrant)
