Civ pro question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
perfunctory

Bronze
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:25 pm

Civ pro question

Postby perfunctory » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:51 am

A, citizen of X state, falls on B's only property in X state. B lives in Z state. X state seeks jurisdiction over B.

Not in personam. Not QIR2. Not in rem. what is this? what happens? can X state get jurisdiction?

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Civ pro question

Postby cavalier1138 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:49 am

I'd hope that a professor wouldn't be sadistic enough to make you fill in the details in that hypo, but as is...

Assuming that this is a claim for negligence in maintaining the property that caused the fall (because otherwise I don't see what claims stem from it), it depends on B's connection to the property. Is it their summer home? Is it commercial land? Is it a small plot for setting up advertising billboards? Is it a car that B parked in the state and forgot about? What is the nature of the state's long-arm statute?

But in general, if it's physical property in the state, then the court can probably exercise some form of jurisdiction over B. I actually think quasi in rem wouldn't be entirely out of the question, depending on the nature of the fall, because you could argue that the property is directly tied to the claim. But that also depends on how far the state's long-arm statute reaches. If they have a broad statute, then there's no need for quasi in rem.

Of course, after all that, you have to figure out whether adequate service of process is possible.

This is all very broadly speaking. If this were an exam question, I'd propose different scenarios that would create or take away personal jurisdiction. But your professor probably has indicated what they prefer.

User avatar
Toubro

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: Civ pro question

Postby Toubro » Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:40 pm

perfunctory wrote:A, citizen of X state, falls on B's only property in X state. B lives in Z state. X state seeks jurisdiction over B.

Not in personam. Not QIR2. Not in rem. what is this? what happens? can X state get jurisdiction?


What do you mean by "Not in personam. Not QIR2. Not in rem."? Are these stipulations in the question, i.e. is the question asking that assuming jurisdiction isn't established IP, IR or QIR2, what else could it be? Or are you just stating your own conclusions? Because QIR2 seems perfectly suited for just this type of action, assuming you satisfy Shaffer v. Heitner. If it's not QIR2 by stipulation, then as cavalier1138 mentioned above, the only viable option seems X's long-arm statute in a multiple choice question.

If it's an essay question, then the professor is probably looking for you to argue QIR1 and drilling to see if you really know the difference between subtypes 1 and 2.

User avatar
cdotson2

Silver
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:06 am

Re: Civ pro question

Postby cdotson2 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:26 pm

it should be in-personam. the accident is directly related to his minimum contacts within the state, specific(as opposed to general) jurisdiction.

Shaffer collapses Quasi-in-rem into in-personam. Unless the long-arm statute has a hole in it, there is no reason to use quasi-in-rem.

User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: Civ pro question

Postby lymenheimer » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:26 pm

What is the reason for why it's not in rem?

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Civ pro question

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:35 pm

lymenheimer wrote:What is the reason for why it's not in rem?


In the given hypo, the state is seeking jurisdiction over B, and in rem would be directly proceeding against the property.

User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: Civ pro question

Postby lymenheimer » Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:56 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
lymenheimer wrote:What is the reason for why it's not in rem?


In the given hypo, the state is seeking jurisdiction over B, and in rem would be directly proceeding against the property.


oh, right. misread it.



Return to “Forum for Law School Students�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests