civpro1lenfant - I. Civil Procedure Lenfent THREE...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Civil Procedure L’enfent I. THREE CONSIDERATIONS IN CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT A. Subject Matter-the court has the right to decide whatever subject (ex:auto accident) Look at constitution and/or statutes that set up the court system. B. Venue-Location C. Jurisdiction over parties themselves-how do we get defendant to come to court? Criminal matters-sheriff is happy to escort a defendant to court Civil-Three basic ways to establish jurisdiction 1. Service of process= notice + order to appear (in personam) 2. Voluntary appearance and participation ( in personam) 3. seizure of property (in rem) II. 3 WAYS TO CHALLENGE A JUDGMENT A. Appeal-object to a decision based on VALIDITY or ERROR. 1. Validity = does the court have the authority to decide the case? 2. Error = the court made an error in coming to its decision. B. Collateral Attack-sue in an entirely different proceeding in a different court. only the validity of the judgment may be questioned, i.e., did the court have jurisdiciton to decide the controversy? (Neff brings collateral attack because he wants to regain property) C. Direct Attack-File in the same court that rendered the judgment arguing that it was invalid. ( Neff could sue Mitchell to have the judgment set aside; he would only have a remedy of $300, the amount of the original judgment ) III. Pennoyer v. Neff A. Mitchell sues Neff for attorney’s fees in Oregon 1. Mitchell is in Oregon 2. Neff is in California, but he owns land in Oregon worth $15000 B. SOP to Neff is published in Oregon newspaper C. Neff doesn’t show up; he knows nothing of proceedings. (Even if he did have notice, he was not required to appear because Or. and Ca. are separate sovereigns: one sovereign cannot summon a non- citizen outside its borders to appear in its courts.) Default Judgment for Mitchell for $300. D. Mitchell goes to Clerk of Court and gets a writ of seizure against Neff's property to collect on the judgment. E. Land sold at public auction to Mitchell for $300-- the amount of the judgment it was being sold to satisfy. F. Mitchell sold land to Pennoyer for a little more than $300. The property was worth $15000 . *** Even if Neff had notice of the lawsuit he did not have to appear b/c of sovereignty jurisdiction of individual states. G. Neff sues Pennoyer in Federal Court (Diversity and >$15,000) if he sued in state court the state would have to give full faith and credit to previous decision by another state's court U.S. Court is bound to give state courts full faith and credit unless the state court issued an invalid judgment. Neff attacks validity of the judgement. 1. N is using the collateral attack. Different proceeding, different court, different purpose. Neff is suing Pennoyer, not Mitchell; he has a U.S. Patent giving him title to the property, and he questions the judgment and sale giving Pennoyer title to the property. He wants to recover property and not $300. 2.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/18/2009 for the course HIST 24655 taught by Professor Pormarcio during the Spring '09 term at LSU.

Page1 / 17

civpro1lenfant - I. Civil Procedure Lenfent THREE...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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