Day One: Personal Jursidiction Flashcards
personal jurisdiction doctrine
concerns state’s ability to assert power over defendant in civil lawsuit
Originated from Pennoyer v. Neff
What happens when victorious plaintiff tries to collect judgment from defendant who declines to pay?
May obtain writ of execution from court (authorize sheriff to seize any of D’s property)
Then sell it and give buyer of property a “sheriff’s deed”
constructive notice
Used to inform defendant of the need to pay judgment
Published in newspaper within state or jurisdiction
“Fictional” notice in that it is unlikely that the defendant actually sees it, especially if non-resident
attachment
legal term for officially sanctioned seizure of property
can mean literal seizure
can also mean posting a “constructive” notice on property so prospective buyers know it cannot be sold by owner with title (because it must be used to pay judgment)
Pennoyer v. Neff: Procedural History
Decided by SCOTUS in 1877
Opinion by Justice Field
Related case: plaintiff Mitchell sued Neff in OR state court for failure to pay $300 in legal fees. Neff failed to appear in court, so a default judgment was rendered in Mitchell’s favor
To try and satisfy judgment, Mitchell sought compensation through Neff’s 300 acres of OR land, which he got from federal government after judgment.
Mitchell had sheriff seize and sell Neff’s land to Pennoyer. Proceeds of the sale went to Mitchell
Pennoyer received a sheriff’s deed as evidence of title.
In second case, Neff as plaintiff sued Pennoyer for title to land in federal court. Lower appellate court sided with Neff, citing affidavit defects.
Pennoyer appealed to SCOTUS as petitioner
Pennoyer v. Neff: first case between Mitchell and Neff
Plaintiff Mitchell sued Neff in OR state court for failure to pay $300 in legal fees. Neff failed to appear in court, so a default judgment was rendered in Mitchell’s favor, and constructive notice was issued
Pennoyer v. Neff: What did Mitchell do after default judgment to secure compensation?
To satisfy court ruling, Mitchell sought compensation through Neff’s 300 acres of OR land, which Neff received from federal government after default judgment.
Mitchell had sheriff seize and sell Neff’s land to Pennoyer. Proceeds of the sale went to Mitchell
Pennoyer received a sheriff’s deed as evidence of title.
Pennoyer v. Neff: How did federal appellate court side in the case involving Neff and Pennoyer?
Neff as petitioner brought second lawsuit against Pennoyer in federal court in order to claim title to 300 acres in Oregon.
Neff pointed to original federal government deed.
Pennoyer pointed to sheriff’s deed.
Lower appellate court sided with Neff, citing affidavit defects.
Peyonner appealed to SCOTUS
Pennoyer v. Neff: Issue
Whether the first lawsuit involving Neff and Mitchell (in which default judgment was rendered) as well as the sheriff’s deed extinguished Neff’s title to the 300 acres of OR land.
Pennoyer v. Neff: Oregon’s constructive service procedure
OR provides for constructive service (notice to be issued) when an action is brought against a:
(1) non-resident defendant
(2) who is absent from court
(3) who owns property within the state
Also requires that the property being serviced is accompanied by an attachment in order to fall under the jurisdiction of the state court.
Mitchell did not include an attachment in this case.
Pennoyer v. Neff: Holding
SCOTUS affirms lower federal court ruling that the state court judgment was invalid, but for a different reason.
Lower court cited affidavit issues. SCOTUS points to the lack of attachment
Pennoyer v. Neff: Rules on personal jurisdiction
Every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction over persons and property within territory
No state can exercise direct jurisdiction over persons or property without territory (territory is a necessary condition for jurisdiction)
The laws of one state have no operation outside of its territory, except as followed by comity
Yet, states may hold non-resident owners of property within their state accountable to satisfy claims of its own citizens (so long as they correctly follow procedures)
Pennoyer v. Neff: SCOTUS’s take on constructive service in general
When a suit is merely in personam (i.e. against a person), constructive service through publication upon a non-resident is ineffective. Must also personally serve to defendant.
When suit is merely in rem, property must be attached to lawsuit at the outset.
Pennoyer v. Neff: Besides lack of attachment, what did Mitchell do wrong when applying default judgment on Neff’s 300 acres?
Mitchell assigned property to seize after the default judgment was rendered.
“The validity of every judgment depends upon the jurisdiction of the court before it is rendered, not upon what may occur subsequently” (71)
Pennoyer v. Neff: Which case did opinion cite to prove that the default judgment was invalid?
Citing Webster v Reid: “In this case, there was no personal notice, nor an attachment or other proceeding against the land, until after the judgments. The judgments, therefore, are nullities, and did not authorize the executions on which the land was sold” (71)
Pennoyer v. Neff: Opinion’s use of Article IV’s Full Faith and Credit clause
Addresses the states’ relations with each other (horizontal federalism)
Provides that one state doesn’t have to enforce judgment against a defendant entered by courts of another state if that other state lacks personal jurisdiction
Stresses the importance of establishing jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction
“power over persons”
According to Pennoyer, to obtain jurisdiction over nonresident defendant, OR plaintiff must have defendant personally served with process within borders of state
Issue is sometimes people own property distant from usual personal residence, so plaintiff should resort to “in rem”
In rem jurisdiction
“power over property or thing”
Pennoyer created a procedure by which courts located in the same state as property could enter judgment disposing of property: by seizing at the outset of the lawsuit, not after lawsuit as Mitchell had erroneously done.
