CIV PRO II ACE OUTLINE
Personal Jurisdiction:
– Personal jurisdiction: power of the state to render judgment against a particular person
– SMJ: power of federal court (not state court) to decide certain kinds of cases
Jurisdiction over the Parties (not SMJ)-Does the court have jurisdiction to decide a dispute between the particular parties or concerning the property?
– 2 Requirements of 14th amendment for court to have Jurisdiction over parties:
o 1) Substantive Due Processàpower to act upon the person/property
o 2) Procedural Due ProcessàAdequate notice & opp. To be heard
– 3 types of jurisdiction court may exercise over the parties (1 must be present for case to go fwd.):
o 1) In Personam: jurisdiction over D’s person (all assets may be seized & judgment can be sued upon in other states)
§ a) if resident, serve in state, or voluntarily consents
§ b) we found you in the jurisdiction and any judgment is a judgment against you, and is not limited to whatever property you have within the state
§ note: if someone is served in a state while they are simply passing through, i.e. MI, but are a citizen of another state, i.e. GA…dominant rule in Story’s time is that you fully submit to the power of the jurisdiction you are traveling through.
o 2) In Rem: jurisdiction over a thing/property, gives the court power to adjudicate a claim made about a piece of property or about a status.
§ Judgment limited to the value of the property (i.e. brothers sue each other over who inherits land)
o 3) Quasi in Rem: Property is not the matter of a suit but is used to bring judgment, attachment of property to gain jurisdiction over the personàthe action is begun by seizing property owned by (attachment), or a debt owed to (garnishment) the defendant, within the forum state. The thing seized is a pretext for the court to decide the case without having jurisdiction over the defendant’s person.
§ Any judgment affects only the property seized, and the judgment cannot be sued upon in any other court
– Jurisdictional Review:
o Direct Review: go to court and P says you have jurisdiction because I served D while he was in jurisdiction-court decides whether service occurred then proceeds
o Indirect Review: case is initially brought in MI and MI determines it had jurisdiction and enters judgment against DàD doesn’t have any $ or property in MI and so P is entitled to judgment but doesn’t have anything…
§ 1) P must find where D’s assets are located & ask the court to honor the judgment
§ 2) That next court in other jurisdiction will ask if MI has proper jurisdiction-if not they will not honor the judgment
Storyàterritoriality is very important
Timeline of Personal Jurisdiction:
– Pennoyer v. Neff (1877)à1st to treat issue as Constitutional oneàreinforces territoriality (must be in state when served for there to be jurisdiction)
o Facts: D appealed the sale of his property in one state to satisfy a personal judgment obtained against him. Service of process for the action to sell his property was by publication & D was a nonresident of the state (Mitchell sued Neff, court auctioned Neff’s house for $ for Mitchell…Pennoyer bought house @ auction & Neff sues Pennoyer to get house back).
o D not served w/ process while they are physically located w/in the state. Rather, notice is given to them by publication while outside of the state…D never physically served
o Holding: No PJ over Neff because Due process requires actual service or appearing voluntarily in the State (in personam)…or land should have been attached at the beginning of the suit (in rem).
§ “Constructive service NOT enough” to satisfy due process.
§ A state has exclusive jurisdiction/sovereignty over people and property within its borders so state must show PJ so as not to overstep its boundsàTerritoriality & 14th amendment are big Themes:
o Rule: Courts have jurisdiction over matters where non-residents who own property in the state have a dispute w/ a state resident.
§ Actual service or voluntary appearance satisfies PJ under Neff (presence and consent)
§ Service by publication ok for proceedings in rem because the owner is assumed to possess & care about the property…but where action is to determine the personal rights & obligations of D (in personam), Constructive Service not enough
§ No state can exercise jurisdiction over people or property in other states.
§ Judgments in personam without personal service of process shall not be upheld.
§ Judgments in rem with only constructive service may be upheld
· Actual Notice: person actually knows
· Constructive Notice: Doesn’t matter whether person actually knows, but found legally to know
· ***non-residents can consent to suit by designating an agent w/in the state to accept service of process.
o ***Takeaway: Pennoyer elevated the question of PJ to a question of Con. Law
§ 1) prior to decision did not look at due process, merely statutory
o ***Also, Territorial view of PJ is huge
– Rise of Corporations:
o Corp’s start in the US in 1850’sàIt is a business entity that acts as an individual, raises $ to accomplish
actually owns the goods when they cross into KY
o Issue: Whether IH was carrying out business in KY in such a way as to justify the KY courts having jurisdiction over complaints filed against IH in KY?
o Rule: The “mere solicitation rule”: soliciting business w/in the jurisdiction is not by itself enough to generate personal jurisdiction over an out of state individual (or corp).
§ “Mere presence of an agent upon personal affairs does not establish jurisdiction in the forum state, it is essential that the corp be “doing business” in the state”
o Holding: IH is DOING business in KY (court fails to address the fact that agents for IH could not do more than confirm orders, cannot create K’s, & all goods shipped FOB from out of State)àDefn of “doing business”?
o Major policy from this case-Quid Pro QuoàSymmetryàWhen an individual/Corp. receives a benefit from a state, you owe certain duties to that state
o 2nd major policy that court uses in this caseàImpact Test: Presence?
– **This case was an attempt by the court to identify concrete things to make analogy between PJ over Individual & Corp in order to fit into the Pennoyer framework.
– Hess v. Pawloski (1927)àImplied Consent to PJ-reaffirms Pennoyer though because someone in the state must personally be served w/ process.
o Facts: Non-resident D was in an auto accident in the state of MA (he is a PA resident), and claimed that the state of MA didn’t have jurisdiction over him because he wasn’t served w/ process in MA
o Issue: Does MA have PJ over D?
o Rule: Statute said that if you are driving a car in another state they consent to being sued in that state w/out actual service w/in the bordersàP must file/serve with the Secretary of State (serves as an agent for the D) as well as provide further notice to you as the basis for a suit
§ ***Such a statute doesn’t violate due process
Public PolicyàQuid pro quo rationale: Riding on foreign state’s highways, have access to their ambulances and policemen; therefore, you owe them something…also, cars are dangerous &
