Adjudicative Jurisdiction Flashcards

1
Q

According to Pennoyer v. Neff - must a party who has no connection with a state other than ownership of property there be subjected to its courts jurisdiction?

A

No, a state may not exercise personal jx. over a nonresident on the basis of property ownership alone. A courts power over a person must be established before a judgment is rendered or it will be void

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does the Due process clause say about a court’s jurisdiction?

A

no person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless they voluntarily appear in the court, are found within the forum state, they reside in the forum state, or have property in the forum state the court has attached.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How does each state have jurisdictional power?

A

Each state has exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. States have power to adjudicate the rights of people inside their border, so generally a state’s jurisdictional power does not extend beyond its territory.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

when might a state’s exercise of jurisdictional authority within its borders have effects elsewhere?

A

When a state may take over contractual issues related to land in another state, but not the land itself.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How must a state handle other states judgments when there wasn’t jurisdiction?

A

States must give judgement rendered in other states full faith and credit but could still inquire into the jx of the ruling because enforcement of a judgment rendered by a court without jx would deny due process.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

According to International Shoe - for a corporate defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a judgment in personam, does due process require that the defendant have a certain amount of minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?

A

Yes, because a corporation is deemed to be present in a state for jurisdictional purposes when the activities of the corporation in that state have been continuous and systematic.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the purpose of the due process clause?

A

It ensures fairness and orderly administration of law - acts as an instrument of interstate federalism. Gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not potentially render them liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

When is due process violated?

A

when a state makes a binding judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations at all.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What does due process require?

A

Requires that a defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with a state such that suing there does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Will service by publication be effective for proceedings In Rem?

A

yes, where the owner will be made aware of the proceedings by the seizure of their property

BUT not for in personam actions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

When can quasi-in-rem jx. be asserted?

A

when the interests of the persons in the property seized have sufficient contacts, ties, or relations to the state.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Must there be sufficient contacts between the state and the interest of the defendants in the property seized before a court can exercise quasi-in-rem jx?

A

Yes, because quasi-in-rem jx. may only be exercised over a peron if the interests of the person in the things seized meet the minimum contacts standard.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Shaffer v. Heitner (facts)

A

QUASI IN REM JX

A shareholder derivative suit in DE agaisnt greyhound alleging acts that took place in OR. A sequestration order argued that it violated due process rights and that the property seized was not capable of attachment in DE.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Shaffer v. Heitner (holding)

A

QUASI IN REM JX

the property seized was statutorily located in DE but it did not have any relation to the subject matter of the litigation.

The defendants had nothing to do with the state of DE, their only connection to it was thtat they had accepted employment in a company incorproated in DE.

This does not mean that a DE court has jx. over them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Pennoyer v. Neff (facts)

A

PERSONAL JX HISTORY

Hire for legal work but failed to pay, so there was suit that was filed in an OR state court. The person who failed to pay was not a resident of the forum state or personally served with process in that state but the legal worker still published notice of the summons locally. After the person who failed to pay then failed to appear in court, default judgment was entered against him. Shortly thereafter, through and auction the legal worker took title to the tract of land that was the other person’s in OR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Pennoyer v. Neff (holding)

A

PERSONAL JX HISTORY

The property was not the subject for the aciton here, the non-payment was.

Constructive notice to a non-resident is insufficient for proceedings to determine personal rights and obligations - jx. is only proper if served inside the fourm state or the defendant voluntarily appears in court. - here neither was present.

The OR state court lacked personal jx and its ruling was void.

17
Q

International Shoe (facts)

A

PERSONAL JX HISTORY

A shoe manufacturer and seller who failed to pay into the WA unemployment fund because they were a DE corporation with their principal place of business in MO. Notice was served upon a salesman employed by them in WA state.

Internatinal Shoe argued that it was not a corproation doing business in WA and it did not furnish employment within the state as defined under state law

18
Q

International Shoe (holding)

A

PERSONAL JX HISTORY

International shoe employed salesmen who resided in WA, whose principal place of business were confined to the state and who were compensated by commissions based on sales.

Therefore International Shoe’s activities in WA were systematic and continuous and resulted in a large volume of interstate business - and the suit arose based on those activities. This permitted the state to enforce the obligations which International Shoe had incurred there.

19
Q

What is the “at home” test for general jursidcition?

A

When a court may assert general jx. over a corproation where they are incorporated and have their principal place of business (at home)

20
Q

According to Daimler - may a court assert general jx. over a corporation if the corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are not so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation essentially at home in that state?

A

No, if such affiliations do not render the corporation at home in the forum state then general jx. is not appropriate.

21
Q

Daimler AG v. Bauman (facts)

A

GENERAL JX - AT HOME TEST

Where residents of Argentina brough suit against Daimler Chrysler in CA alleging that they collaborated with Argentinian state security to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain workers.

Daimler was a German company incorporated in DE and its principal place of business in NJ.

22
Q

Daimler AG v. Bauman (holding)

A

GENERAL JX. - AT HOME TEST

The Argentinian Chrysler dealer was an independant contractor not a general/special agent, partner, or etc. of Daimler Germany.

Daimler’s afiliations with CA were not so subtantial that they justified the suit being heard there - these contacts also did not render the company to be considered at home in CA

23
Q

What is the global reach purpose of the “at home” test?

A

If corporations that weren’t at home were allowed, others would have the same glabal reach which wouldn’t permit out of state defendants to structure their conduct with assurance as to where their conduct will and will not render them liable.

24
Q
A