This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: ANSWERING JURISDICION QUESTIONS: 1. Is there a statute or rule that gives the court a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction? 2. Is this exercise of jurisdiction constitutional? a. Does the ∆ have minimum contacts with the forum state? b. Are the ∆’s contacts with the forum state so substantial that she can be subjected to jurisdiction on claims not related to the lawsuit on a theory of general jurisdiction? c. Has property of the ∆ been seized within the state? If so, is this a sufficient ground for the exercise of jurisdiction? d. Has the ∆ consented to jurisdiction in the forum state? e. Was the ∆ personally served within the forum state? 3. Is venue proper? If not, is it possible to transfer the case to a location that is a proper venue? 4. Was proper notice given? I Territorial Jurisdiction and Related Matters A. Introduction 1. Types of Territorial Jurisdiction : Territorial jurisdiction is a state’s power to hear a case and enforce its judgment. a. In personam jurisdiction : In personam jurisdiction permits a court to enter a judgment that is personally binding on ∆ b. In rem jurisdiction : In rem jurisdiction permits a court to adjudicate the rights of all possible claimants in a specific piece of property. c. Quasi in rem jurisdiction : There are two types of quasi in rem jurisdiction. - The first type involves individual disputes related to property under the court’s control- The second type involves personal disputes where the court could not assert personal jurisdiction over the ∆ , but had jurisdiction over property belong to the ∆. You would have to attach this property. This is not used anymore. 2. Traditional Power Theory: Under Pennoyer v. Neff , a state could only exercise power over individuals or property if there is a valid service of process on the individual or attachment of property . a. Pennoyer v. Neff: no pj b/c Π wasn’t properly served (service by publication) and no in rem juris. b/c property wasn’t attached 3. Shift to Minimum Contacts: With International Shoe , the Court shifted from an emphasis on in-state service to a requirement of minimum contacts with the forum state “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. B. Contemporary Constitutional Grounds for State Court Jurisdiction 1. Contacts with Forum International Shoe generated a two-stage approach to jurisdiction problems, looking first to whether the ∆ purposely availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum and then at the reasonableness of permitting jurisdiction. a. Minimum Contacts – purposeful availment Purposeful availment inquiry focuses solely on activities of ∆ , looking for some voluntary action by ∆ establishing a beneficial relationship with the forum state....
View Full Document
- Fall '07