Notes on Civ Pro Readings for 9.3.

14

Pennoyer v. Neff
SCOTUS trying to define limits of a courts power to exercise personal jurisdiction

Facts: Mitchell brought suit against Neff to recover unpaid legal fees. Mitchell published notice
of the lawsuit in an Oregon newspaper but did not serve Neff personally. Neff failed to appear
and a default judgment was entered against him. To satisfy the judgment Mitchell seized land
owned by Neff so that it could be sold at a Sheriffs auction. When the auction was held Mitchell
purchased it and later assigned it to Pennoyer.
Neff sued Pennoyer in federal district court in Oregon to recover possession of the property,
claiming that the original judgment against him was invalid for lack of personal
jurisdiction over both him and the land. The court found that the judgment in the lawsuit
between Mitchell and Pennoyer was invalid and that Neff still owned the land. Pennoyer lost on
appeal and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Holding: A court may enter a judgment against a non-resident only if the party 1) is personally
served with process while within the state, or 2) has property within the state, and that property is
attached before litigation begins (i.e. quasi in rem jurisdiction

Oregon state court asserts jurisdiction over Neffs Oregon property but the problem was that he
did not provide the court with any basis for jurisdiction before the court purported to exercise it
Under Pennoyer framework the court has to assert authority over the property through
attachment before exercising jurisdiction against it

In-rem jurisdiction refers to the power of a court over an item of real or personal property. The
"thing" over which the court has power may be a piece of land or even a marriage. Thus, a court
with only in-rem jurisdiction may terminate a marriage or declare who owns a piece of land. In-
rem jurisdiction is based on the location of the property and enforcement follows property rather
than person.

Impractical consequences to Pennoyer rigid rule are ill equipped to deal with an
increasingly national economy

*Leads court to recognize domicile

Hess v. Pawlowski
A state has the power to legislate that non-residents who use its highways consent to the
appointment of a third party as agent for the service of process in that state for actions arising
from use of the highways.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington movement into modern era of personal jurisdiction
Holding: Minimum contacts with the forum state can enable a court in that state to
exert personal jurisdiction over a party consistent with the Due Process clause.


International Shoe Co. (D, appellant) was a Delaware corporation with its principle place of
business in St. Louis, Missouri. It had no offices in the state of Washington and made no
contracts for sale there. International Shoe did not keep merchandise in Washington and did not
make deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce originating from the state.
International Shoe employed 11-13 salesmen for three years who resided in Washington. Their
commissions each year totaled more than $31,000 and International Shoe reimbursed them for
expenses. Prices, terms, and acceptance or rejection of footwear orders were established through
St. Louis. Salesmen did not have authority to make contracts or collections.
The state of Washington brought suit against International Shoe in Washington State court to
recover unpaid contributions to the unemployment compensation fund. Notice was served
personally on an agent of the defendant within the state and by registered mail to corporate
headquarters. The Supreme Court of Washington held that the state had jurisdiction to hear the
case and International Shoe appealed.
Contacts: because they imply the defendant has taken advantage of the benefits and protections
of a states laws
Two ways for defendants contacts with a forum to lead to personal jurisdiction:
1. Specific in personam jurisdiction: if claim arises from defendants personal contact with
the state (ie they are At home in the state)
2. General in personam jurisdiction: claim can arise even if defendant is not in the state.
The claim can be founded on in state contacts
Courts still need long arm statute for personal jurisdiction. In addition to constitutional
authority from Due Process clause in 5
th
ammendment.
DArcy v. Ketchum, (1851)
The question presented was whether a judgment rendered by a New York court, under a statute
which provided that, when joint debtors were sued and one of them was brought into court on a
process, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would entitle him to execute against all, must be
accorded full faith and credit in Louisiana when offered as a basis of an action in debt against a
resident of that State who had not been served by process in the New York action. The Court
ruled that the original implementing statute, 1 Stat. 122 (1790), did not reach this type of case,
and hence the New York judgment was not enforceable in Louisiana against defendant. Had the
Louisiana defendant thereafter ventured to New York, however, he could, as the Constitution
then stood, have been subjected to the judgment to the same extent as the New York defendant
who had been personally served. Subsequently, the disparity between operation of personal
judgment in the home State has been eliminated, because of the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment. In divorce cases, however, it still persists in some measure.