This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Civ Pro Outline COURSE INFO: Professor Patricia Hansen, University of Texas, Spring 2007 3 Prerequisites/Rings I. Personal Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction & Venue must all be satisfied in order to bring suit in a particular forum. a. It’s no answer to an objection to personal jurs that diversity is present or that the venue provisions of 28 USC §1391 are satisfied. b. Each of 3 doctrines has a diff legal source, serves distinct purpose & employees diff standard a. However, the standards that govern personal jurs, subject matter jurs and venue are closely related. Ex: “domicile” is relevant to all 3 rings. b. Some factors are only involved in one ring, and others involve more than one. Personal Jurisdiction 2 Step Analysis First: Is personal jurisdiction constitutional under min contacts test? Second: Does the state’s long-arm statute authorize personal jurisdiction? Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction I. Pennoyer v. Neff in 1877: Sup Crt held ptfs can’t bring suits wherever they choose. a. Not limiting where dft can be required to defend would violate 14 th ’s Due Process II. 3 kinds of jurs over parties: a. In Personam - jurs over dft’s “person,” which gives crt power to issue judgment against him personally and all his assets to satisfy judgment & judgment can be sued on in other states too. b. In Rem – jurs over a thing gives crt power to adjudicate claim made about a piece of prop or a status. c. Quasi in rem jurs – here action is begun by seizing prop owned by (attachment), or a debt owed to (garnishment) dft, w/in the forum state. The thing seized is a pretext for the crt to decide case w/out having jurs over dft’s person. Any judgment affects only the property seized & judgment cannot be sued upon in any other crt. III. Minimum Contacts w/forum state (constitutional limit) a. For In Personam or Quasi In Rem , crt may only exercise jurs if dft has “minimum contacts” w/the state. b. Even if dft has minimum contacts, crt wont exercise jurs if considerations of fair play and substantial justice would require making dft defend in the forum state unreasonable as to constitute a due process violation. Rare. 1 c. International Shoe : held that state crts may exercise personal jurs over dft if he has such min contacts w/state that it would be fair to require him go & defend lawsuit in state. Crt didn’t define this w/#, but suggested that whether jurs is permissible depends on the “quality & nature” of contacts. Sometimes even a single strong contact will do, but not “casual” or & nature” of contacts....
View Full Document
- Fall '07
- The Land, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Choice of law