Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Civil Procedure > Personal Jurisdiction > Flashcards

Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards

1
Q

Personal Jurisdiction

A

The ability of a court having subject matter jurisdiction to exercise power over a particular defendant or item of property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction, categories

A
  1. Statutory Limitations
  2. Constitutional Limitations
  3. Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Statutory limitations

A

a state statute must grant the court the power over the parties before the court, otherwise the court lacks PJ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Constitutional Limitations

A
  1. Defendant must have such contacts with the forum state that exercise of PJ is fair and reasonable
  2. Defendant must be given appropriate notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard
    * Note: exercise of PJ over D in violation of these requirements is not valid, even if statute purports to grant court PJ
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Personal jurisdiction in federal courts

A
  • Generally, federal court analyzes PJ as if it were a court of the state in which it is located
  • PJ without long-arm statutes over 3rd-party D and parties required to be joined under compulsory joinder rules
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Three types of Personal Jurisdiction, categories

A
  1. In personam
  2. In rem
  3. Quasi in rem
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

In personam jurisdiction

A

Exists when the forum has power over the person of a particular D

  • Court may render money judgment against D or other remedies
  • Judgement creates D personal obligation subject to full faith and credit in all other states
  • P may enforce judgment against D’s property in any other state
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In rem jurisdiction

A

Exists when the court has power to adjudicate the rights of all persons in the world with respect to a particular item of property

  • Limited to situations where property is located within physical borders of state AND where it’s necessary for state to be able to bind all persons re: property’s ownership and use
  • Includes condemnation (eminent domain cases); forfeiture of property to the state; and settlement of decedent’s estates
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Quasi in rem jurisdiction

A
  • Court has power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property within the court’s control
  • Note: unlike in rem, does not permit court to determine the rights of ALL PERSONS in the world with respect to property
  • Court may adjudicate disputes other than ownership based on the presence of D’s property in the forum
  • Note: D not personally bound by judgment and cannot be enforced against any D property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Statutory bases for “in personam” jurisdiction

A
  1. Whether D is present in forum state and is personally served w/ process;
  2. Whether D is domiciled in the forum state;
  3. Where D consents to jurisdiction; AND
  4. Where D has committed acts bringing D within the forum’s long-arm statutes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

“In personam” jurisdiction basis: 1) physical presence at time of personal services

A

If D is physically present in the forum state and can be served with process within the borders of the state, even if merely passing through, state laws generally grant “in personam” jdx
*Note: exceptions for 1) service by fraud or force and 2) immunity of parties and witnesses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Exceptions to physical presence basis for statutory “in personam” jurisdiction

A
  1. Service by fraud or force invalid -> if P brings D into a state by fraud or force to serve process, generally invalid to exercise PJ over D
  2. Immunity of parties and witnesses -> grant immunity from PJ if nonresident is present in state solely to take part in judicial proceeding, or passing through state on way to judicial proceeding elsewhere
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

“In personam” jurisdiction basis 2: domicile

A

Most states grant court in personam jdx over persons domiciled in the state, even if D is not physically within the state when served with process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Domicile (in personam jurisdiction)

A

The place where person maintains permanent home

*Note: PRESENCE must be coupled w/ INTENTION place be permanent home

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

“In personam” jurisdiction basis 3: consent

A

D may expressly or impliedly consent to in personam jdx

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Express consent (in personam jurisdiction)

A

Party’s express consent either before or after suit is commenced is sufficient basis for in personam jdx

  1. by contract -> advance consent to jdx in event a suit is brought
  2. by appointment of agent to accept service of process -> includes requirements for heavily regulated types of businesses in which nonresidents engage in that business to appoint such an agent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Implied consent (in personam jurisdiction)

A

When state has substantial reason to regulate the in-state activity (like driving in the state) of a nonresident of the state, by engaging in such activity (like an accident while driving), nonresident impliedly consents to jdx

18
Q

Voluntary appearance in case (in personam jurisdiction)

A

D consents to jdx by a voluntary appearance (such as contesting case without challenging PJ), but there are “special appearance” exceptions that must be asserted by D in initial pleading to court

19
Q

Basis for “in personam” jurisdiction 4: long-arm statute

A

In personam jdx over nonresidents who perform or cause to be performed certain acts within the state OR who cause results within the state by acts performed outside the state
*jdx regardless of whether D served in or out of forum, but limited to causes of action arising from the acts performed or results caused within the state

20
Q

Constitutional Limitations on “in personam” jurisdiction

A
  1. sufficient contacts with the forum

2. adequate notice and opporunity to be heard

21
Q

Sufficient contacts with the forum (“in personam” jdx)

A
  1. Traditional rule: physical power

2. Modern Due Process standard: Contact, relatedness, and fairness

22
Q

Modern Due Process standard, 1) sufficient contacts with the forum (“in personam” jdx)

A
  • Whether sufficient minimum contacts between D and the forum so that suit against D does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
  • Factors:
  • -> Contact: purposeful availment and foreseeability
  • -> Relatedness: whether claim arises out of or relates to D’s contacts with the forum
  • -> Fairness: convenience, forum state’s interest, P’s interest in convenient and effective relief,
23
Q

Contacts with the forum state (“in personam” jdx), purposeful availment

A

D’s contact with forum cannot be accidental

  • Purposeful availment -> privilege of conducting activities with the forum and invocation of the benefits and protections of forum’s law (purposeful availment of the privileges and protections of the forum)
  • Note: “stream of commerce” cases
  • Note: Internet cases
24
Q

“stream of commerce” cases, purposeful availment (sufficient contacts, along with foreseeability, for Cons check on “in personam” jdx)

A

A. Merely placing an item in the stream of commerce, by itself, is not a sufficient basis for PJ
B. Unresolved whether placing an item in stream w/ knowledge or hope that it will end up in a particular state would be sufficient basis for PJ -> look for INTENTIONAL targeting of the forum
C. Placing item in stream of commerce, coupled with some other acts that show intent to serve a particular state, IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS for PJ (i.e., modifying product to comply with state law, maintaining sales office within state, maintaining repair capabilities in the state, etc.)

25
Q

Internet cases, purposeful availment (sufficient contacts, along with foreseeability, for Cons check on “in personam” jdx)

A
  • look to whether site is passive or active
26
Q

Contacts with the forum state (“in personam” jdx), foreseeability

A

Must be foreseeable that D’s activities make D amenable to suit in forum
* D must have known or reasonably anticipated activities in the forum would render it foreseeable that D may be “haled into court” in forum

27
Q

Modern Due Process standard, 2) relatedness of claim to contact (“in personam” jdx)

A

Whether claim asserted against D arises out of or relates to D’s contacts w/ the forum

  • If yes, likely jdx is fair and reasonable
  • Court determines nature and quality of D’s contacts with the state
28
Q

Relatedness of claim (“in personam” jdx), claim arising from activity in forum (specific jurisdiction)

A

“Specific jurisdiction” -> If D’s in-state activity is based on isolated acts committed in forum, PJ over D will be proper ONLY FOR causes of action ARISING FROM or RELATING TO that in-state activity

29
Q

Relatedness of claim (“in personam” jdx), “at home” in the state (general jurisdiction)

A

“General jurisdiction” -> in personam jdx for ANY cause of action against D, regardless of where cause of action arose, if D is “at home” in jdx

  • Person “at home” in state of domicile
  • Corporation “at home” where incorporated OR principal place of business
30
Q

Modern Due Process standard, 3) fairness (“in personam” jdx)

A

In addition to relevant contacts with forum, exercise of PJ must not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
*Note: not a factor of general jdx

Factors:

  • Convenience -> not required to be the best of several alternatives; forum generally acceptable unless it is “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage in comparison to opponents”; v difficult standard to meet, not sufficient that P has superior economic resources
  • Forum state’s interest -> state may have legit interest in providing redress for its residents
31
Q

Notice (“in personam” jdx)

A

In addition to requirement that D have such minimum contacts with forum to render the exercise of jdx fair and reasonable, due process also requires that a reasonable method be used to notify D of a pending lawsuit, so D has opportunity to appear and be heard
*Due Process requires notice be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections

32
Q

Traditional methods of personal service satisfy due process notice requirements

A

Traditional methods that satisfy Due Process notice requirements:

  1. personal delivery to D (adult and not party)
  2. leaving papers with reasonable person at D’s reside or place of person (lives at residence and capacity)
  3. delivery to an agent appointed to accept service
  4. delivery by registered mail, return receipt requested
33
Q

Requirement that agent notify D

A

Failure of agent to notify D will prohibit jdx if an agent is appointed by contract, since D deprived of opportunity to be heard
*Does not apply when D voluntarily selects own agent, since failure can and will be attributed to the principal

34
Q

Notice requirements for cases involving multiple parties or unknown parties (“in personam” jdx Due Process)

A

If impracticable/ prohibitive, personal service on each party not required

  • However, every party has to be notified by the best practical means available
  • I.e., if addresses/ contact known, notify by ordinary mail; if contact unknown, notify by publication
  • *Note: such methods of notice valid ONLY IF all Ds have substantially identical interests
35
Q

Knowledge that notice by mail was not received (“in personam” jdx Due Process)

A

Cannot proceed when knowledge that notice by mail was not received if practicable alternatives to apprise D of the action exist

36
Q

“In rem” jdx

A

Adjudicate rights of all persons with respect to property located in the state
*Note: does not bind the parties personally, but is binding as to the disposition of the property in the state

37
Q

Statutory limitations on “in rem” jdx

A

Statutes provide for in rem jdx in actions for:

  • condemnation
  • title registration
  • confiscation of property
  • forfeiture of a vessel
  • distribution of the assets of an estate
  • grant of divorce when only complaining spouse is present and subject to PJ (the “property” is the marital status of the complainant)
38
Q

Constitutional limitations on “in rem” jdx

A
  1. Nexus -> the basis of jdx is the presence of the property in the state; no jdx if the property is not located in state; no jdx if property brought in by fraud or force
  2. Notice -> at least, persons whose interests are affected and whose addresses are known must at least be notified by ordinary mail
39
Q

“Quasi in rem” jdx

A

Permits a court within in personam jdx to determine certain disputes between a P and a D regarding property when the property is located in the forum state

40
Q

Statutory limitations on “quasi in rem” jdx

A

Two types of “quasi in rem” jdx:

1) Involves disputes between parties over their rights in property within the state
2) Involves disputes UNRELATED to the in-state property and has been severely limited by Supreme Court -> no PJ over D, but D has property in the state that P attaches to claim; Court then adjudicates the dispute between the parties on the basis of its power over the property
* Note: any judgment against D can be satisfied only out of that property, since the sole basis of jdx is the property

41
Q

Constitutional limitations on “quasi in rem” jdx

A
  1. Nexus -> minimum contacts standard is applicable to every exercise of PJ
    - -> when the dispute involves the rights of the parties in the property itself, jdx based upon the presence of the property in the state is proper
    - -> when dispute is unrelated to ownership of property, jdx CANNOT be based solely on presence of property in forum; MUST BE min contacts between D and forum (but if D has min contacts, D likely has in personam jdx under long-arm statute)
    - -> Procedural requirements: P must “bring the asset before the court” by attachment; inhibits the sale or mortgage of D’s interest
  2. Notice -> requires the best practical notice

Civil Procedure (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions