Personal Jurisdiction Question Forum

[ph14]

So in our class we went through the history of personal jurisdiction starting with Pennoyer v. Neff and working our way through the expansion of the doctrine. Is that going to be relevant when i'm taking an exam? Should I include those older cases and the history of the expansion in my outline? Or should I just start with the modern cases, post International Shoe?

[I.P. Daly]

It's entirely up to your professor. You might pick up some points by briefly mentioning the territorial analysis on an exam...

Ask your professor.

[random5483]

As mentioned above, it depends on your professor. Most professors, however, consider Pennoyer a seminal case. It would be best to mention it when dealing with a personal jurisdiction question. At the very least mention if there would be personal jurisdiction under Pennoyer (will take one or two sentences). Other than Pennoyer, most of the older personal jurisdiction cases are probably not too important. Several of the cases after International Shoe though will be critical. Civ Pro tends to be very case heavy while covering jurisdiction.

[ph14]

As mentioned above, it depends on your professor. Most professors, however, consider Pennoyer a seminal case. It would be best to mention it when dealing with a personal jurisdiction question. At the very least mention if there would be personal jurisdiction under Pennoyer (will take one or two sentences). Other than Pennoyer, most of the older personal jurisdiction cases are probably not too important. Several of the cases after International Shoe though will be critical. Civ Pro tends to be very case heavy while covering jurisdiction.

Great thanks. I'm still a little confused though on how to actually do a personal jurisdiction analysis. First I look for in person service in the state, consent, waiver, and none of those then proceed to minimum contacts test. Then for minimum contacts I need to look at purposeful availment and if it exists on part of the defendant, then look at the 5 fairness factors the SC has given? Where do things like foreseeability, specific and general jurisdiction come into play? Are those just factors that affect the determination of whether minimum contacts exist?

How does in rem and quasi in rem end up playing out? Quasi in rem was killed for the most part by the Supreme Court, but you can still use it if there is the requisite minimum contacts. Why would you want to use quasi in rem when you could just use in personam? How does in rem fall into this, no minimum contacts needed but the case can only be about the property?

[bk1]

I agree with the above saying that it depends on your professor. Asking a former student is probably your best bet.

[random5483]

As mentioned above, it depends on your professor. Most professors, however, consider Pennoyer a seminal case. It would be best to mention it when dealing with a personal jurisdiction question. At the very least mention if there would be personal jurisdiction under Pennoyer (will take one or two sentences). Other than Pennoyer, most of the older personal jurisdiction cases are probably not too important. Several of the cases after International Shoe though will be critical. Civ Pro tends to be very case heavy while covering jurisdiction.

Great thanks. I'm still a little confused though on how to actually do a personal jurisdiction analysis. First I look for in person service in the state, consent, waiver, and none of those then proceed to minimum contacts test. Then for minimum contacts I need to look at purposeful availment and if it exists on part of the defendant, then look at the 5 fairness factors the SC has given? Where do things like foreseeability, specific and general jurisdiction come into play? Are those just factors that affect the determination of whether minimum contacts exist?

How does in rem and quasi in rem end up playing out? Quasi in rem was killed for the most part by the Supreme Court, but you can still use it if there is the requisite minimum contacts. Why would you want to use quasi in rem when you could just use in personam? How does in rem fall into this, no minimum contacts needed but the case can only be about the property?

In Personam Personal Jurisdiction:

Traditional Basis: Pennoyer - Presence, consent (and domicile/residency based on pre-pennoyer law).
Modern Basis: International Shoe - Minimum Contacts + Fairplay and substantial justice (5 fairness factors from World Wide Volkswagon).

Need both prongs. Without either, no jurisdiction. Sequenced test, first test for minimum contacts and then for fairplay and substantial justice. Specific/general jurisdiction fall under minimum contacts analysis. The more systematic and related the contacts, the more likely general jurisdiction. THe more isolated and unrelated the contacts, the more likely no jurisdiction. Somewhere inbetween, possibly specific jurisdiction.

In Rem: Quiet title to property over all other persons. Item has to be located in an area where the court has jurisdiction.

Quasi In Rem: Two categories. One type is like in rem except that it is a quiet title to property only among parties to suit. Second type is more like personal jurisdiction. It deals with Jurisdiction over claims unrelated to property, but judgment is limited to value of property. Basically, minimum contacts and the fair play and substantial justice requirements apply to the second type of quasi in rem. See Shaffer v. Heitner and Burnham v. Superior Court.


Disclaimer: Going off memory from a year back.

[jeeptiger09]

Of course, it's definitely ad-hoc and depends largely on your professor. But it wouldn't hurt to get a decent understanding of ISC, Volkswagen, etc. A lot of the more modern cases are built on the foundations of the legal arguments of the older cases (not really Pennoyer though, that case just sucks).

And if you're in an essay final, being able to cite to cases can't hurt.