Sealing Civil Procedure Outline by BS

Sealing Civil Procedure Outline by BS - Civil Procedure...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Civil Procedure Outline: I. Personal Jurisdiction: The power of a court to enter a judgment against a specific D. a. A court can assert personal jurisdiction ONLY IF its power is authorized by statute AND does not exceed the limitation of the Due Process Clause b. Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction i. Pennoyer v. Neff 1877 1. What we get out of Pennoyer: a. 3 types of jurisdiction i. In rem: Jurisdiction over property ii. In personam: jurisdiction over person iii. Quasi in rem: used when jurisdiction over the D is unobtainable because of their absence. Any judgment will ONLY affect the property in question. The court can obtain jurisdiction over the property to gain jurisdiction over the D. b. Personal jurisdiction is forever linked to the 14 th Amendment of Due Process. 2. What the court decided: a. Since the 14 th amendment had not been ratified yet…they had to use the full faith and credit clause: Other states have obligation to honor proper judgments made in other sovereigns. b. The sale of the Neff’s land to Pennoyer was not valid because the land was not under the jurisdiction of the Oregon court because Neff did not own the property at the time of the original suit. ii. Kane v. New Jersey 1916 1. What we get out of this case a. Because of interstate transportation to gain personal jurisdiction you have to designate an agent within the state. c. Expanding the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction i. Hess v. Pawloski 1927 1. What we get out of this case: a. Driving on roads = implied consent to personal jurisdiction in the forum state b. Use of implied consent adheres to due process because it treats non- residents and residents alike. 2. What the court decided a. Massachusetts statute of implied consent of motorists using the roads equates to consent to the laws of the land complies with due process of the 14 th Amendment. d. New Theory of Jurisdiction i. “Consent Theory”: a out of state company could do business in another state only with its permission 1. This became unrealistic ii. “Presence Theory”: an out of state company is under the jurisdiction of a state’s court if doing business within the state and to such an extent to infer that it was present there 1. problematic because courts lost jurisdiction once the company stopped practicing business there iii. International Shoe (new way to determine jurisdiction over an absent defendant) 1. What we get out of this case: a. Due Process consists of: i. Minimum Contacts can be either general or specific ii. Minimum Contacts = constituting a “presence” in the state
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
1. systematic and continuous 2. Availed them of the benefits of the state iii. Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice. 2. What the court decided a. The activities of International Shoe within the Washington borders constituted a presence, making it liable to the obligations of the unpaid unemployment tax.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/02/2009 for the course LAW 601 taught by Professor Criddle during the Fall '08 term at Syracuse.

Page1 / 51

Sealing Civil Procedure Outline by BS - Civil Procedure...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online