Lesson 1: Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

Territoriality Rule (and case)

Answer 1

Pennoyer v. Neff: A state may assert personal jurisdiction over any individual served with process while within the borders of the state (summons)

Question 2

Minimum Contacts Rule (and case)

Answer 2

International Shoe Co. v. Washington: A state may assert personal jurisdiction over an individual if he has certain minimum contacts with the forum, such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notices of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 3

In Rem Jurisdiction

Answer 3

Permits a court to determine the rights of all claimants to a specific piece of property. This authority comes from a state’s power to determine controversies regarding real property within it’s borders.

Question 4

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Answer 4

The power of a court to render a judgment against an individual defendant because of property which the defendant holds in the forum state, even though the court otherwise lacks personal jurisdiction. A court acting under quasi in rem jurisdiction may enter a judgment against the defendant only up to the amount of the value of the property that he holds in the forum state.

Question 5

Modern Approach to In Rem Jurisdiction (and case)

Answer 5

Shaffer v. Heitner: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of exercising in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction in a given case must be determined by the “minimum contacts” standard of Int’l Shoe v. Washington. Thus, not only must the property be located within the forum state, but it must also be “fair” to assert jurisdiction based upon the defendant’s contacts with the forum.

Question 6

Challenging Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 6

A defendant may challenge personal jurisdiction either in a pre-answer motion or in his answer to the plaintiff’s claim. If the defendant fails to raise an objection in his first response, he will be deemed to have waived the right to object.