On Thursday, we jump into into Personal Jurisdiction with International Shoe in 1945. But there is some background and about 70 years of stuff before Shoe. For purposes of time, this post provides basic background on civil litigation and personal jurisdiction prior to Shoe. Before reading the material assigned for Thursday, read this post in conjunction with Glannon pp. 69-71 and these pages from Glannon's prior edition (he removed this material from the new edition, but has given permission to share the old pages).
Personal jurisdiction means jurisdiction (power or authority) over the parties involved in litigation--the power to make them answer and litigate, respond to court orders, and be bound by a judgment. It focuses on geography--whether a court within the geographic borders of a state can make the defendant defend and be bound by a judgment.
PJ connects to service of process. Service--specifically proper service--establishes personal jurisdiction and the defendant's obligation to respond and to be subject to the court's power. For service to be proper and to require a party to litigate, the court issuing the process must have PJ.
• In Personam Jurisdiction. This is a personal action by Plaintiff against Defendant for some personal liability. Jurisdiction is established through personal service. This is the most common type, covering most of the cases you have seen elsewhere (torts, contracts, statutory rights such as employment discrimination, etc.).
• In Rem. This is formally or theoretically an action against a res (thing or object or property). The case seeks to adjudicate the rights of the world in a piece of property. One example is a civil forfeiture action. If you look through the Federal Reporter and Federal Supplement, you will see cases with names such as United States v. Nine Boats or United States v. $ 1,000,000 in Cash or United States v. One Book titled Ulysses. Another is a quiet title action, in which a party seeks to determine the rights of the entire world and determine ownership of a piece of property. Service is by attachment or sequestration; the property is seized (literally for personal property such as the infamous baseball in Popov, legally for real property) and placed within the court's control, until the court can determine who owns the property.
• Quasi In Rem. This action litigates the interests of particular persons in a res. They are part in personam and part in rem--In personam because they involve a dispute between identifiable persons over personal rights, in rem because the dispute is over property.
We can divide this into two types
• Quasi In Rem I. Plaintiff seeks to establish or declare rights and interests in property against a defendant's competing interests in the property. This includes a foreclosure action by a bank (in which the bank vindicates its contractual rights by seizing the property); an action for specific performance of a contract for A to sell property to X; and a quiet title action between specific individuals to determine ownership of the res (again, Popov, the baseball case from Property).
• Quasi In Rem II. Plaintiff uses the res to secure a claim or to recover money on a prior in personam judgment. Two examples:
Example I: A sues X in Florida on a personal injury action. X owns property in Florida. A attaches that property to litigate the claim in Florida and to secure a possible judgment; the seized property ensures that A can recover on a potential judgment if he wins.
Example II: A sues X in Florida on a personal injury action; A wins a monetary judgment and must collect on it. X owns property in NY (land, wages, bank accounts, whatever). A attaches that res in NY and seeks to recover the amount owed in the judgment through the property (this is called an enforcement action, a specific type of claim recognized in state law).
The key to Example II is the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Art. IV and the Full Faith and Credit Act. In simplest terms, the New York court must enforce the Florida judgment if that judgment was valid in Florida. One aspect of "validity" for that prior judgment is that the Florida court had personal jurisdiction.
Pennoyer v. Neff. This is SCOTUS's first major personal jurisdiction case and a law school classic. Since it no longer is good law (at least for now, despite the efforts of some scholars), we skip it. Feel free to read the case or Glannon's pretty nice summary of it at pp. 70-71.
For our purposes, Pennoyer establishes the "Power Theory" of personal jurisdiction, which rests on two postulates: 1) A court in a state exercises exclusive authority over persons and property within its territory and 2) No court in a state can exercise authority over persons or property without its territory. We will begin class with these postulates and how they have evolved, starting with International Shoe.
Remember Sylvester Pennoyer and thanks for listening.
