Introduction to Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
Personal jurisdiction
A court order is required to adjudicate or have liabilities over the defendant. The defendant must have minimum contacts in the forum state. *** The defendant has had zero contacts and can not be sued in that forum state. This JD is always revolving around the defendant.
Case Pennoyer v Neff
Facts
Pennoyer v. Neff is a landmark case arising from a dispute over ownership of a tract of land in Oregon, valued at $15,000. Marcus Neff, the plaintiff, claimed ownership of the land based on a grant issued to him by the U.S. government in 1866 under the Donation Law of Oregon. Neff had hired attorney John H. Mitchell to handle the paperwork, but a dispute over unpaid legal fees led Mitchell to sue Neff for $300 in 1865. At the time, Neff had moved to California and was not personally informed of the lawsuit as Mitchell opted to notify him through an unlikely-to-be-seen publication in a newspaper called the “Pacific Christian Advocate.” Neff’s lack of response resulted in a default judgment against him, and his land was auctioned to satisfy the debt. Mitchell himself purchased the land and later transferred it to Sylvester Pennoyer, the defendant, who engaged in timber operations and maintained the property. Upon returning to Oregon in 1874, Neff challenged the legality of the judgment and sale, arguing the Oregon court had lacked jurisdiction over him as he was not properly served. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in favor of Neff. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, and Pennoyer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issue
The central issue in Pennoyer v. Neff was whether a state court could exercise jurisdiction and render a valid judgment against a non-resident defendant, who was not personally served with process within the state, based solely on the non-resident’s ownership of property within the state that was not directly attached or brought under the jurisdiction of the court in the initial proceedings.
Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Oregon state courts had no jurisdiction to render a judgment in personam (i.e., a personal judgment) against Neff, a non-resident, because he was neither personally served with process in Oregon nor did he voluntarily appear in Oregon court thereby consenting to jurisdiction in Oregon. Furthermore, the Court found that the property in Oregon was not properly attached (i.e., “brought under the control of the court”) at the start of the litigation, which was necessary to establish in rem jurisdiction over it. As a result, the judgment obtained against Neff in Oregon and the subsequent sale of his property were deemed invalid.
Reasoning
The Court’s decision was heavily anchored in the concepts of jurisdiction, sovereignty, and due process. The Court emphasized that the authority of state courts is confined within the state’s territorial limits and cannot extend to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents who have not been served with process within the state or voluntarily submitted to the court’s authority. The Court distinguished between actions in rem (against the property) and in personam (against the person), clarifying that having property within the forum state does not automatically grant jurisdiction over a non-resident owner for personal judgments. The judgment against Neff was invalidated because he was not personally served in Oregon nor did he voluntarily appear in Oregon court; therefore, the Oregon court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate his personal liabilities merely based on his property being located in Oregon. The Court also emphasized that for a court to exercise in rem jurisdiction—specifically quasi in rem jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the property in connection with a personal claim against its owner)—the property must be legally attached at the outset of the litigation. Since Mitchell, the plaintiff in the initial lawsuit, did not attach Neff’s property at the commencement of his suit for unpaid legal fees, the Oregon court lacked in rem jurisdiction over the property. Therefore, not only did the court lack in personam jurisdiction over Neff, it also lacked any form of in rem jurisdiction over the property connected to the personal claim against Neff. The Court ultimately ruled that any assertion of jurisdiction by the Oregon courts over Neff, without proper service of process in Oregon or his voluntary appearance in Oregon court, was an illegitimate assumption of power in violation of due process.
In persona jurisdiction
courts authority over a defendant’s personal interest or obligation on a defendant
seeking a personal judgment
Types:
General - defendant’s primary residence or place of business. It arises out of contact.
Specific - defendants’ actions within the jurisdiction
Basis:
presence
domicile
consent
waiver
minimum contacts
Requirements:
service of process
reasonable notice
opportunity to defend
In Rem jurisdiction
impose a judgment on a piece of property
interest or ownership in a piece of property
Quasi in Rem jurisdiction
allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant’s property or interests within the court territory, even if the defendant is not personally present.
*** It also is a hybrid form of jurisdiction that combines elements of in personal and in rem jurisdiction,
Case: International Shoe Co v Washington
Facts
The International Shoe Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes and other footwear, was subject to an assessment for unpaid contributions to the Washington state unemployment compensation fund. The notice of assessment for the unpaid contributions was personally served upon a sales representative of International Shoe in Washington. Additionally, a copy of this notice was sent by registered mail to the company’s address in St. Louis, Missouri. The company maintained no offices, made no contracts for sale or purchase of goods, maintained no stock of merchandise in Washington, and made no deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce within the state. However, it employed salesmen residing in Washington to solicit orders for its products, which were sent to the company’s office in St. Louis for acceptance and fulfillment. The salesmen used samples to solicit orders and occasionally rented spaces for displaying these samples, costs which were reimbursed by the company. The Supreme Court of Washington found that the company’s activities, particularly the systematic and continuous solicitation of orders and other related activities in the state, constituted doing business in Washington, thus making it amenable to state taxation and jurisdiction for the purpose of collecting unpaid contributions to the state’s unemployment compensation fund. International Shoe appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
The central issue was whether the International Shoe Company, by its activities in the State of Washington, had sufficient contacts with the state to subject it to jurisdiction in Washington’s state courts, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the International Shoe Company, through its systematic and continuous activities in the State of Washington, had established sufficient contacts with the state. Consequently, the company was subject to the jurisdiction of Washington’s courts for the purpose of enforcing tax obligations arising from employment within the state, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reasoning
Mcgee v International Life Ins.Co
Facts
Lulu B. McGee, the petitioner, obtained a judgment in a California state court against the International Life Insurance Company, the respondent, regarding an insurance contract. The respondent was a Texas-based company and was served with process by registered mail, not within California. This action was under a California state statute allowing suits against foreign corporations in insurance matters with state residents. The insurance policy in question was originally with Empire Mutual Insurance Company, which was assumed by the respondent in 1948. The policyholder, a California resident, paid premiums from California, and the petitioner was the beneficiary. Upon the policyholder’s death, the respondent refused to pay, citing suicide as the cause. McGee filed suit in Texas to enforce the California judgment, but Texas courts deemed the judgment void under the Fourteenth Amendment, citing lack of jurisdiction by California courts over the respondent.
Issue
The key issue was whether the California court had jurisdiction over the respondent, International Life Insurance Company, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the respondent not being physically present in California and served outside its boundaries.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Texas courts, holding that the California court did properly exercise jurisdiction over the respondent. Thus, the Texas courts should have given full faith and credit to the California judgment.
Reasoning
The Court reasoned that due process requires only that the defendant have “minimum contacts” with the forum state, such that maintaining the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The contract had substantial ties to California – it was delivered there, the premiums were paid from there, and the insured was a resident of California. California’s interest in providing redress for its residents and the respondent’s notice of the suit and opportunity to defend were key factors. The Court also considered the changes in the national economy, the increase in interstate business, and advances in communication and transportation, which reduced the burden on a party sued in a state where it conducts economic activity. The Court concluded that enforcing jurisdiction in this case under the California statute, which was remedial and did not impair the respondent’s substantive rights, did not constitute a denial of due process.
Samantha P. Profile Image
Samantha P.
Long arm statutes
A long-arm statute is a statute that allows for a court to obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant on the basis of certain acts committed by an out-of-state defendant, provided that the defendant has a sufficient connection with the state.
Legal Certainty Test
The meaning of LEGAL CERTAINTY TEST is a rule in federal civil procedure: a defendant’s challenge to diversity jurisdiction made on the basis that the amount of money involved in the controversy falls short of the jurisdictional amount will be defeated if the plaintiff provides proof that the amount is certain to be met —called also legal certainty rule, legal certainty standard.
