CivPro Class Notes August 21, 2013 How a case is set up: Facts Issues Body Holding Rationale

ionale Application to the facts Pennoyer v. Neff Issue: was the ruling in the lower court valid? If it is, then Pennoyer wins. If judgment is invalid, there is a legal flaw in it, then Neff wins. On appeal from the Circuit Court of Oregon (trial court had been a federal district court) The opinion here is from the US Supreme Court There is a basic issue about the validity of the judgment in the first case (1) judgment was void due to lack of personal service and (2) the wrong type of proceeding had been used here since the property was not attached. So, an important issue was at stake when should a court judgment be respected Mitchell never argued that patent was his (that would be a property case) way you would show that would be to attach property at beginning of the case execution of property would happen after the judgment NOT A PROPERTY CASE THIS IS A PERSONAL CLAIM AGAINST NEFF wouldnt have been able to attach property at beginning of the case doesnt have a legal claim to the land (note: difference between residency and citizenship) First judgement was rendered void because it was fundamentally flawed on a legal basis non-resident/not served foundational validity good enough for a collateral attack 3 types of personal jurisdiction In personam In rem Quasi-in-rem procedural issues what was the role of the property in Pennoyer? (look at PPT) Holding: (p80) to give such proceedings any validity... a court cannot enter a judgment against a non-resident unless that person is personally served while within the state or that person has attached land at the time of suit courts must have proper: Subject matter jurisdiction The court must have power to hear the case under the law that creates the court AND; Personal jurisdiction for cases involving the personal liability of the defendant that means by two

methods only 1) service of process within the territory of the state or 2) voluntary appearance (you have consented) by the defendant (ie appearing in the court to contest on the merits of the dispute if you showed up wanting to contest to jurisdiction then you're making a special appearance in state Rationale: 2 principles of public law (aka international law: relations between states) pp77: (1) every state possess exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory (2) no state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority without [outside] its territory **everything is based upon territoriality If you're inside my territory I have power over you, if not I don't. Note 3, p 83-84 quasi-in-rem (?) now has been largely disbanded other option is to go to person B to bring action in their courts have to hire a local lawyer, find B, at a disadvantage at courts in a different country what constitutional issues are raised? (2) Full faith and credit clause art. IV, sec. 1 of the constitution (1) full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state enforces each other states judgments only when they're valid (have subject matter and personal jurisdiction) what was the jurisdictional problem in pennoyer: personal. (2) due process clause (5th (federal) // 14th amendment (states) ) cant be applied to Mitchell v. Neff because put in after the case // 14th not retroactivenow they would citizens of the US are guaranteed that they shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law **this case constitutionalized judgments TRIANGLE: top: constitution// middle:laws //bottom: regulation consequences: to obtain personal jurisdiction in an in personman case you must serve the defendant while he/she is within the state or must consent what constitutes presence? Does it matter how long you are present or why? Early analysis suggested that it did not. See Grave v. MacArther, Note 4, p. 84 for a discussion of the concept of transient presence Does it matter whether you have a certain status? citizenship matters see note 5, p84 france doesnt have right to say no because you're not frenchyoure a US

citizenship//the only person that can speak to you as a citizenship is the US // cannot claim protection in another state with state citizenship: the legal understanding about domicile domicile (physical residence plus an intent to remain/return) see note 5, p84-5 residence is the least permanent cannot claim multiple domiciles