Top Law Schools

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.