Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

What are the three varieties of Jurisdiction?

1._____________

2. a_____________
3. b_____________

3._____________

(from lecture)

Answer 1

1. In Rem Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over a thing
2. Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
   2a. Quasi In Rem #1
   2b. Quasi In Rem #2
3. In Personam, aka Personal Jurisdiction

Question 2

What does Quasi In Rem #1 pertain to?

from lecture

Answer 2

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction #1 is similar to In Rem Jurisdiction (over a thing).

However, Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction #1 is more limited, as QIR#1 only binds the parties in lawsuit. Doesn’t bind non-parties.

Question 3

What does Quasi In Rem #2 pertain to?

from lecture

Answer 3

Quasi In Rem #2 binds a person based on property within a state’s boundaries.

Example from class: If you are in a car accident in South Bend, IN with Tidmarsh, and Tidmarsh owns a lakehouse in Michigan, you could go to Michigan and sue Tidmarsh’s house there. The state of Michigan would have jurisdiction over the case, even though the accident took place in Indiana, and both parties live permanently in Indiana. You are competing against property. Property is the defendant in the case.

Question 4

Which of the three (or four, technically) kinds of Jurisdiction is the most common?

1. In Rem Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over a thing
   2a. Quasi In Rem #1
   2b. Quasi In Rem #2
2. In Personam, aka Personal Jurisdiction

(from lecture)

Answer 4

3. In Personam, aka Personal Jurisdiction

Question 5

What is the first step in determining if a court has Personal Jurisdiction over a person?

(from lecture)

Answer 5

In order to maintain Personal Jurisdiction over a person, the court must have a rule or statute that gives the court power to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.

Thus, the first step is ALWAYS to check if there is a rule/statue granting that court jurisdiction.

Question 6

In the landmark Penoyer v. Neff case, the court decided clearly that the power of state courts to enter judgment against defendant is granted by _______________.

see Penoyer v. Neff

Answer 6

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Question 7

In the Penoyer v. Neff case, the Court held that states are limited by _________ in entering judgments over a person.

Hint: phrasing in 14th Amendment

Answer 7

Due Process.

States are limited by ‘due process’ in entering judgments over a person.

Question 8

The case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington established the modern rule on Personal Jurisdiction.

The court held that ‘__________ presence’ is required within a state, in order for that State to have Personal Jurisdiction over a person

Answer 8

‘Sufficient Presence’.

The court held that ‘sufficient presence’ is required within a state, in order for that State to have Personal Jurisdiction over a person.

Question 9

According to the precedent set in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the court held the standard necessary to satisfy Penoyer’s requirement of just due process.

“Due process requires that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment…he have certain _______ ______with it”

Answer 9

Minimum Contact.

“Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment…he have certain minimum contact with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial judgment’”

International Shoe Co. v. Washington,