CIVIL PROCEDURE I FALL 2010

PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Why is personal jurisdiction so important?
-you are only familiar with the laws of your sate
-want to be tried by a jury of your peers
-adequate notice of legal/illegal activities
A. Rooted in 2 clauses of the constitution
a. Full faith and credit clause states must respect judgments of
other states
b. Due process clause (14 amendment) a right of the individual
not to be sued if the court does not have jurisdiction over him
B. IN PERSONAM: jurisdiction over the defendant himself (the person)
a. Traditional Bases for PJ are: Power, Consent, Domicile (3
Prongs of Pennoyer)
i.
Power- jurisdiction is a function of physical power over
persons and things
1. Power to act- substantive due process- court must
have power to at either upon given property or on a
given person so as to subject her to personal
liability, 14 amendment imposes required of power
to act
2. Power: Long Arm Statutes (ON TEST)
1. States authorize their courts to exercise
jurisdiction over s in other states if they
have sufficient contacts with the state
2. Statute permits the court of a state to
obtain jurisdiction over persons not
physically present within the state at
time of service
3. Substitute service- usually statute provides
for substitute means of service since in state
person service is not possible
1. Ex: registered mail
b. Power over Person or Property
th

th

Pennoyer v. Nef (U.S. 1877): Presence in Forum State

Mitchell (Oregon domicile) was an attorney for Neff (nonresident of Oregon)Mitchell sued Neff for failure to pay fees- Neff was served notice through a
newspaper in Oregon. He never answered, and Judgment was entered upon
his default- Mitchell had a sheriff seize Neffs Oregon property. Sheriff sold
the property to Pennoyer, and paid Mitchell amount owed from the lawsuit.
Neff reappeared in Oregon and when he found his property was seized, filed
suit against Pennoyer to get his property back.
Issue- whether Oregon had personal jurisdiction over Neff in the original
lawsuit by Mitchell
Court found that the courts original verdict was invalid because Oregon
didnt have in personam jurisdiction over Neff, and so it was wrongly seized
and sold to Pennoyer.

RULE= To have in personam jurisdiction, there must be personal

service of process or defendant can make a voluntary appearance.
(Presence, Consent)
A state has exclusive jurisdiction over people and property within its
borders, and cannot exercise jurisdiction over people in other states
(Domicile)
The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution only applies when the
court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction of the parties and of the
subject-matter
ii.

Consent- CONSENT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH

MINIMUM CONTACTS
1. Express Consent: consents to specific
jurisdiction (clause in contract)
2. Implied consent- statute covering motorists
traveling in another state consent to suit on car
accidents (Hess v. Pawloski)
3. Forum selection clauses: when parties specify
that disputes can be heard only in a particular
clause in most jurisdiction forum selection clauses
are enforceable provided they are fundamentally
fair

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute: Forum Selection Clause confers

jurisdiction on the chosen forum and precludes jurisdiction in another forums purchased tickets for a cruise from a travel agent in Washington; tickets
had a forum clause that all disputes would be heard in Florida; on the cruise,
slipped and fell, filed suit in Washington; Carnival motion for summary
judgment based on clause
Holding- forum selection clause is enforceable and suit should be in Florida
because Shute conceded they were given notice of the forum provision
Reasoning- Cruise line has a special interest in limiting the fora in which it
could be subject to suit because ship carries people from all over
Hess v. Pawloski (U.S. 1927)- Pawloski (MA resident) sued Hess (PA
resident)- Hess negligently struck and injured Pawloski while driving in MA-
brings action in order to recover damages for personal injuries sustained
while driving on a highway in Mass.
s arg- states that Mass does not have jurisdiction over him because there
was no personal service made on him and no property belonging to him was
attached.
Holding- Mass had jurisdiction over - by driving in MA he authorized the MA
DMV to act as his agent and thus consented to PJ there
RULE= a statute appointing an agent for service of process for
nonresident motorists complies with the 14 Amendment
th

4. Consent of Corporations
1. Always PJ in state of incorporation
(Pennoyer)

2. States assert jurisdiction under two basic

theories:
1. if corp. had extensive activities within
the state- established presence in
the state - subject to general
jurisdiction
2. If corp. had less activity in the state
corp. has implied consent to suits
arising out of activity- subject to
specific jurisdiction
2. If corporation is foreign to forum state, then
need either
1. Minimum contacts
2. Voluntarily sought to do business in or
with residents of forum state
3. Has an agent in the state
iii.

Domicile- is domiciled in the forum (general

jurisdiction)

Miliken v. Meyer: Domicile

Facts= brings suit against in Wyoming, (WY resident) was personally
served in CO, D. did not appear against the WY action and judgment was
made against the D, who later tried to nullify the Judgment stating that WY
did not have jurisdiction over him
Law: Serving someone personally even though they are out of state
establishes state jurisdiction.
Holding/Rationale: The U.S. Supreme Court REVERSED the CO court. State
citizenship (domicile) is usually defined as the place where the person resides
and intends to remain indefinitely. A persons citizenship with a state
does not go away just because they spend time outside the state.
iv.

Notice- Due process clause of the 14 amendment

requires that the defendant receive adequate notice of
the litigation
1. CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE: SATISFIED BY CERTIFIED
OR REGISTERED MAIL WHEN DEFENDANT CANNOT
BE LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE
2. METHODS OF SERVICE
1. If a is in state, most courts allow for service
in hand and on an agent of the defendant
designated to receive service
2. If a is out of state, accomplished by means
of the states LONG ARM STATUTE (permits
one state to claim jurisdiction over an
individual living in another state as long as
contacts exist)
3. must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to
bring the within the coverage of the longarm statute then court decides whether
th

sufficient minimum contacts are shown to

comply with the requirements of due process
2. In order to determine whether the presence of an in
state agent constitutes minimum contacts consider:
1. Does the agent conduct a substantial
amount of business in the forum state for D?
2. Does D have some degree of control over
how the agent performs that work?
3. Is the agent authorized to contract for D
d. If in personam exists, judgment binds the personally
d. A state has jurisdiction over a person merely passing through
the state provided the person was served while within the
borders
C. IN REM: jurisdiction over a particular item of property owned by a
person (specific jurisdiction)
1. Obtained by seizing the property at the outset of the action
2. A judgment in an in rem case affects only the property and is
limited only to the value of the property (limited appearance)
3. Examples: mortgage, foreclosures, real-property, stocks, etc.
4. Statutory inquiry- attachment statute requires attachment at the
outset of the litigation
1. Common law attachment standard from Pennoyer
ii.
Constitutional Inquiry- see Shafer v. Heitner
D. QUASI IN REM: gives court jurisdiction over the personally, but only
to the extent of the in-state property belonging to him that has been
attached- the property is simply a means to gain jurisdiction over s
assets and is bidning on parties themselves
1. Quasi in Rem Type I- disputes as to title of property
2. Quasi in Rem Type II- claim against has nothing to do with
property attached
3. How to Handle QIR
1. 1 look at Statute- attachment statute (not long-arm
statute)
1. we can attach property that a non resident owns or
claims to own
2. today, every state has an attachment statute,
which requires attachment at the outset consistent
with Pennoyer
2. 2 - constitutional analysis- Pennoyer said okay if you
attach the property at the outset
1. Shaffer v. Heitner- for all cases including in rem and
QIR you must apply Intl Shoe min contacts test- it is
not enough to have the property the forum and
have it attached at the outset- you must show
has min contacts
2. There is an argument that Shaffer sounds more
sweeping than it is- with QIR need to show min
st

nd

contacts, but not necessarily with In Rem b/c in

those cases the property is at issue
E. 2 types of personal jurisdiction
1. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION: the claim has a strong relationship to
the forum, the s other contacts almost none jurisdiction exists
for the specific claim in question but not necessarily for other
claims- limited to claims that arise from the s contacts
1. Allows an injured pedestrian to sue driver on a claim
arising from that accident even if that was the first time
driver entered the state
2. TEST FOR SPECIFIC JURISDICTION:
1. has purposefully availed himself or herself of
forum benefits,
2. Controversy is related to or arises out of the s
contacts with the forum,
3. Assertion of PJ would comport with fair play and
substantial justice
3. Unlike General Jurisdiction over s based on extensive
activities subjecting them to jurisdiction on any claim,
specific jurisdiction is limited to particular claims arising
from particular, but limited activity in the state
McGee v. Intl Life Ins. Co. (1957)- relatedness- s claim related to
contact with forum
o Facts= purchased a life insurance policy; paid premiums from
CA to TX until his death; when died, refused to pay out-
sued the TX insurance company in CA
o argued lack of jurisdiction in CA b/c they were based in TXonly one contact in CA
o Holding= one contact in the forum state is sufficient for due
process- there was PJ- insurance policy on a CA resident was
sufficient to establish minimum contacts
o RULE= expands Intl Shoe- specific jurisdiction- s claim was
related to s contact with the forum (these contacts created
specific jurisdiction)
solicited business in CA, s claim arose out of the s
contact with CA (called relatedness) and states
interest in protecting its citizens from out of state
companies
Case reaffirms that specific jurisdiction can arise out of a
single act- one insurance policy in CA (so due process
wasn't violated)- established that the inconvenience of
defending an action in another state has been reduced
due to ease of transportation
Gray v. American Radiator (Ill. 1961)- Stream of Commerce
o Illinois Long Arm Statute- authorized PJ if the commits any
tortious act while in the state or committed outside the state to
someone from the forum state (general idea of long arm
statutes)

o
o
o

Facts: Suit against valve manufacturing company b/c water

heater exploded and injured the - corp appeared specially and
filed a motion to quash on the ground that a tortious act had not
occurred in Illinois.
2 issues: (1) whether tortious act was committed here
(statutory question) and (2) whether the statute violates due
process of law (constitutional question)
Holding- subject to suit in Ill. under this L-A statute although it
had not done any act in Ill.
RULE= The use of products in the ordinary course of commerce
is a sufficient contact with the state. Putting a product into a
stream of commerce in the forum is enough to establish
personal jurisdiction over the defendant because there is an
expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the
forum state.
Reasoning- PJ in this case does not violate the due process-
enjoyed the benefits from the forum state- claim arose out of the
s actions in the state.

b. GENERAL JURISDICTION: the has a powerful/substantial

relationship/contacts with the forum so that he could be sued
there for any claim against it, no matter where the claim arose
1. may be sued for any claim, doesnt have to relate to
activities it performs in forum state
2. GJ requires systematic and continuous contacts ties
with the forum or domicile
3. It is neither unfair nor inconvenient to require to defend
any lawsuit there, including ones that arise in other states
4. Corporations
1. Determined by place of incorporation and principle
place of business
2. May also be established with sufficient contacts
with the forum state
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (1952)
Facts= Shareholder files suit against the foreign company;
scorporation topped working in the Philippines during war and
conducted business out of temporary headquarters in Ohio
Holding- Ohio has PJ because of continuous and systematic
supervision of the company
Rule- when a non-resident cannot be found and served within the
forum, and when the cause of action arises outside of the forum,
exercise of PJ over the requires systematic and continuous contacts
with the forum state
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall (U.S. 1984)
- Helicopter owned by Helicopteros crashed with 4 U.S. citizens; estate
sued Heli in Texas (Heli is foreign corp.- Colombia)
Holding- TX does not have PJ - lack sufficient contact with the forum to
satisfy due process
- No place of business in TX, never licensed to do business in TX

- Only Contacts= president flew to TX to negotiate terms, company

purchased helicopters from TX, employees went to TX for training
not of continuous and systematic nature to constitute PJ
- General Jurisdiction because the accident has nothing to do with TX
RULE= must have minimum contacts with the forum state and the
purpose of the suit does not violate the traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice
- Facts here dont support systematic and continuous businesstherefore cannot have PJ over
- Brennans dissent- believes benefitted from protections of state, so
should be able to be sued here- thinks there were enough contacts
here- this eventually becomes law in Burger King
F. Long-Arm Statute
1. Two requirements must be met before court can proceed
to adjudicate s rights:
1. (1) Court must be authorized to exercise jurisdiction by
statute
2. (2) It must be constitutionally permissible under due
process analysis for the court to exercise that statutory
authority
ii.
For out-of-state there must be sufficient contacts with the
forum state through:
1. Tortious act- wrongdoing aimed at a person to cause
intentional harm
2. Transacting business in the forum state
3. Owning property in the state
F. Special appearance: a defendant appears only to contest jurisdiction
and their appearance does not constitute consent to the courts
jurisdiction
Constitutional Test
1. Minimum Contacts Standard
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (U.S. 1945)- Minimum Contacts &
Reasonableness
1. Facts= State of Washington brought suit alleging that
corporation had failed to pay into state unemployment fund; Intl
Shoe is DE corp with principal place of business in Missouri;
notice was personally served on an agent of the in Washington
and copy was mailed to corporate headquarters; Intl Shoe made
"special appearance" to attack jurisdiction on grounds that
service upon s salesman was not proper
2. Holding= Washington had PJ over the DE corp. although the
corp. was not physically present in the state, the corp. has
sufficient contacts with that state (systematic and continuous
which resulted in a large amount of interstate business-
received benefits and protections of the laws of the forum state),
and the claim arose out of those contacts

3. Rejects Pennoyers territorial approach of needing presence

in forum state- did NOT overrule Pennoyer (you can still get PJ
by presence but its not required)
4. RULE= Personal jurisdiction can also be satisfied by minimum
contacts test: To have PJ, must have (1) minimum contacts
with the state such that (2) the maintenance of the suit does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Minimum contacts requirements
e. If jurisdiction is in personam or quasi in rem, court may not
exercise PJ unless D has minimum contacts with the state in
which the court sits
e. must have purposefully directed himself towards forum state
without min contacts, exercise of jurisdiction would violate 14
amendment
e. Even if min contacts with forum state, court will not exercise
jurisdiction if considerations of fair play and substantial justice
would require making D defend in forum state so unreasonable
as to constitute a due process violation
Further Interpreting International Shoe
1. Requirements of a Purposeful Act
Hanson v. Denckla (U.S. 1958)- Purposeful Availment
Facts= Mrs. Donner had established a trust with a
DE trustee; after creating the trust Donner moved
to FL; when she died, suit was brought in FL courts
to gain the assets in the trust- DE and FL courts
each claimed its decision was entitled to full faith
and credit.
Holding= supreme court held that the FL decision
was not entitled to full faith and credit because FL
could not constitutionally assert jurisdiction over
the DE trustee- must purposefully avail itself to
the privilege of the forum state by conducting
activities within the forum state thus evoking the
benefits and the protections of the forum state laws
RULE= must engage in some act purposefully
availing him/herself of the privilege of conducting
activities with the forum state.
2. Personal Injury and Product Liability Cases
World-Wide Vokswagon Corp. v. Woodson (U.S. 1980)Foreseeability
Supreme Court distinguished between
foreseeability that a product would go to a
state and foreseeability that the would be
sued there based on deliberate contacts
Facts= Purchaser bought car in NY as NY residents;
purchaser then decided to move to AZ- involved in
an auto accident in OK; purchaser sued NY dealer,
regional distributor, and other parties in OK state
court, alleging design defect
th

Holding- NO PJ in OK over the dealer or distributor

because no minimum contacts or purposeful
availment
s contact with OK didnt satisfy the notions of fair
play and substantial justice (conducted no sales or
services in the state; did not avail themselves of
the privileges and benefits of OK law; solicited no
business in the state; did not advertise in the state)
Two prong test for min contacts:
(1) Purposeful availment- act must be
purposefully directed at forum state
(2) Reasonableness or foreseeability of the
suit- Ds contacts must be such that he
should reasonably anticipate being hailed
into court there
Would cause problem that anyone that
sells anything will have to be subject
to jurisdiction anywhere that products
may go
RULE- Mere foresseeablility without an effort
to market in state is not enough for
jurisdiction- PJ exists only if the non-resident
made an effort to market in state to the extent that
he should reasonably foresee being haled into
court there
Dissent- Brennan problem with foreseeability
prong- doesnt see difference between distributor
and producer in the state- both derive substantial
benefits from OK and should be able to be sued
there
Distinguished WWV from Gray- WWV lacked
intentional delivery of products into stream of
commerce

Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California (U.S. 1987)

stream of commerce
Facts= Zurcher lost control of his motorcycle and suffered injuries and
wifes death; Zurcher filed a product liability action in CA alleging the
accident was caused by a sudden loss of air and an explosion in the
rear tire of the motorcycle; tire, tube and sealant were defective;
Zurchers complaint named Cheng Shin Rubber & Cheng Shin
indemnified (compensate for loss or damage) Asahi (Asahi made the
valves of the inner rubber tube)
All claims were settled except claim by Cheng Shin
against Asahi
made a component part that was incorporated
into a final product in another country and resold
into CA

Issue= whether the component maker (Asahi) had

sufficient contacts with CA to support jurisdiction,
when a consumer bought the product there and
was injured by it there
was not subject to jurisdiction where the final
product was sold- Jurisdiction is based on
purposeful availment, and the mere sale of a part
from Japan to Taiwan did not establish minimum
contacts with CA
Minimum contacts- substantial connection between and
forum state is necessary to find minimum contacts-
must purposefully direct himself towards forum state
Holding- no jurisdiction over Asahi- even though min
contacts under stream of commerce- it would be unfair
and unreasonable to require them
RULE= The placement of a product into the stream of
commerce is not enough to establish minimum contactsMinimum contacts requires to purposefully direct its
actions towards the forum state. And must be fair
Difference between this and Volkswagen- in WWV the
court would not find jurisdiction b/c the end user (the
family) was the one who took the product into the forum
state- here the stream of commerce is not good enough
b/c it is still UNFAIR (s burden, s interest, forums
interest)
Plurality opinion- couldnt agree on how to get to this
answer of NO PJ
OConnor (decision)- need more than a reasonable
anticipation that a product will reach the forum stateneed purposeful availment, not just mere awarenessintent to serve the forum state (advertise)
Brennan- sufficient contacts by putting product into
stream of commerce- it was foreseeable, but it just wasnt
fair- so still no PJ

3. Defamation and Targeted Wrongdoing

Calder v. Jones (U.S. 1984)- Intentional Tortious Act effect test
o Facts= Jones sued for libel/defamation by s in magainze article
with huge circulation in CA (National Enquirer)- s moved to
quash the service of process for lack of PJ
o RULE= If a commits an act outside the state that she KNOWS
WILL CAUSE harmful effects within the state, she will be
subject to min contacts jurisdiction there for claims arising out of
the act
o Holding= Jurisdiction over in CA is proper- sufficient contacts
with state even though he did not act within the state-actions of
s were intentional and tortious and expressly aimed at the
CA resident

After this case, courts appear to be imposing a requirement of

express aiming or targeting at an audience in the forum in order
for jurisdiction to stand in intentional tort cases involving
defamation as well as the internet cases

Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.(1997)- trademark infringement

(Calder and the internet)
Internet based commercial activity in the context of specific
jurisdiction- claims of libel over the internet
Court characterized internet activity as falling into 3 categories: active,
passive, and middle ground
Is operator of a website exposed to jurisdiction anywhere in the world?
Recent cases focus on whether website was intended to reach (i.e.,
targeted) customers in the forum state
Whether allows access to site by users from forum state, whether
site uses language of the forum state, whether site requires viewer to
click on particular States from which he is accessing the site to enter
the main page
Prices in US dollars, marketing directed towards forum? Shipments
made to the forum? Testimonials from customers in the forum?
4. Commercial Contract Cases
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (U.S. 1985)- FAIRNESS
requirement of DUE PROCESS
Facts= Michigan resident obtained a franchise
from BK, a FL corp.; the agreement soured (fell
behind on monthly payments to BK)- BK
Headquarters notified to terminate the Michigan
operations- continued to operate anyway- BK
sued in FL; challenges PJ in FL
Holding= Court held FL did have PJ over because
knew he was negotiating with a FL corp.; made
payments to FL
RULE= The two concepts of Intl Shoe (1)
systematic and continuous activities (contacts) and
(2) fairness not to offend the traditional notions of
fair play, are put on a sliding scale
The greater the contacts the more likely the
court will say its fair to bring suit in that
forum - but if D doesnt have relevant
contacts all the fairness in the world still
wouldnt allow jurisdiction

(1) CONTACT: in considering whether a

contract creates a contact, there are 4 factors to be
considered
Nature of prior negotiations between the
parties
Rudzewicz chose to establish a
franchise with a FL company

The contemplated future consequences of

entering into the contract
All business is taken care of in FLthrough Miami headquarters
The terms of the contract
FL mentioned in all aspects
The course of dealing between the parties
FL office took care of all business- not
Michigan

(2) FAIRNESS- (fairness standard from Intl

Shoe is now reasonableness- a lot lower of a
standard)

5 factor test for fair play

Burden on (travel, lodging,

expenses)

Interests of (in receiving

effective and convenient relief)

is from the forum,

availability of
witnesses/evidence

Interests of forum state

(protect citizen, dispute affects state)

Efficiency (Litigate in one

place)

Interstate policy interests

Burden on to show that the forum is

so unconstitutionally unfair- so gravely
inconvenient that you are at a severe
disadvantage in the litigation
Continuous but limited activity
in forum state supports
SPECIFIC jurisdiction
If D has fair warning he
can be sued in forum sate
b/c purposefully directed
activities there- D no
longer needs to be
physically present in
forum state as long as he
created this substantial
connection and action
arises from those
particular activities that
established the
connection
Jurisdiction is reasonable and fair- s could reasonably
foresee being haled into court in FL

5. Specialized Problem of Nationwide Jurisdiction

GMAC v. Raju (VA 2003)- nationwide jurisdiction

Facts= GMAC develops and owns rights to the GMAT (assesses
qualifications of graduate applicants)- Raju (citizen of India) sells
GMAT questions at a low price
Federal courts only have jurisdiction over cases that Congress/federal
statute allows them to
The federal courts jurisdictional reach is the same as the state it is
located in- regardless of whether subject matter is based on diversity
or federal question
Rule 4(k)(2)- this rule provides for PJ through nationwide service of
process over an D provided:
o (1) Exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the Const. and the
laws of the US
o (2) The claims arises under federal law, and
o (3) the D is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of general
jurisdiction of any state
Aggregate/National contacts Theory- court found that
although the D does not have sufficient contacts with a single
state to satisfy due process, its contacts with the US as a whole
DO NOT meet the due process standard
Holding- Requirements of VAs long-arm statute are met, BUT
no PJ based on Rajus contacts with VA- doubtful that Raju
directed electronic activity into VA with the intent of doing
business there
FINAL HOLDING- Rajus contacts with the US are sufficient to
permit the exercise of PJ without violating due process- there is
PJ over Raju under Rule 4(k)(2)
Pennoyer is still good LAW
Burnham v. Superior Court of California (U.S. 1990)- general
jurisdiction
Facts= husband filed for divorce in NJ on grounds of
desertion (but never served wife w/papers so nothing
happened); wife filed in CA and served husband while he
was in CA on business and visiting kids; husband made
"special appearance" to quash service of process on
grounds that court lacked PJ
Holding= CA has jurisdiction- Jurisdiction based on
physical presence alone constitutes due process (but no
majority opinion)- traditional Pennoyer law
RULE= The courts can acquire jurisdiction over
nonresidents who are physically present in the state if
they are personally served there, doesnt matter if is
there momentarily and it does not matter if the lawsuit
has nothing to do with why the is there.
No majority rule
Scalia: unnecessary to apply minimum contacts test
because that test was developed as a way to allow courts

to exercise jurisdiction over people who were not present

(Pennoyer)
Brennan: minimum contacts test applied but s
voluntary presence + service in state is enough for
general jurisdiction (tag jurisdiction)

6. Property-Based Jurisdiction
Harris v. Balk (1905)
FACTS= Epstein, a Maryland citizen with a claim against
Balk, learned that Harris, who owed money to Balk, was
coming to Maryland- Epstein sued Balk in Maryland and
obtained a writ of attachment for the seizure of Harriss
debt to Balk- served the writ on Harris while he was in MD
This was quasi in rem type II jurisdiction, because
Harriss debt to Balk was completely unrelated to
Epsteins claim against Balk- it simply provided an
unrelated asset that could be seized by the court and
used to satisfy Epsteins claim
Old case- at that time, a state court could not assert PJ
over a person who was not physically served process in
that state- however if owned property in that state in
which was situated, could attached to the action
whatever property owned in that state
Remedy was limited to only involving the property
Court considered debt property and ruled that debt was
considered to follow the debtor (ex: wherever a debtor
went, he brought along the debt he owed to his creditor)

Shafer v. Heitner (U.S. 1977)- in rem jurisdiction

Facts= Shareholders sued officers and directors of
Greyhound for evil behavior allegedly causing harm to the
company- filed a motion to sequester all the Greyhound
common stock and options- this was done to acquire
jurisdiction over the out-of-state residents by virtue of
seizing property (stock) in the forum state- DE court relied
on Pennoyer to gain jurisdiction through stock within the
state of DE
Quasi in Rem- Heitner did not claim any preexisting
ownership interest in the stock itself- he sought to
adjudicate an unrelated claim that arose in Oregon based
on the courts seizure of these intangible assets
Holding= DE court does not have jurisdictionsequestering the stock was not by itself enough to satisfy
the minimum contacts test
None of the individual s were domiciled in DE, and
none of the wrongful acts occurred in DE; so DE
lacked the minimum contacts to exercise PJ
Rule= A can no longer automatically acquire
jurisdiction over a nonresident simply because the s

property is located in the forum state. The must

establish that the had minimum contacts with the forum
that are related to/arise out of action and subjecting it to
jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play
and reasonableness
So if property in the state serves as a basis
for jurisdiction but is unrelated to the cause
of action, there must be sufficient minimum
contacts with the state to support jurisdiction
over the
If you have in rem, you need moreyou need a claim
related to the property
Effects of Shaffer:
Prevents the use of quasi in rem jurisdiction when
the property is the only contact and the actions has
nothing to do with the property
Extended the minimum contacts analysis to s who
are individuals, not just corporations

Ways to obtain PJ:

1. Presence - you're served with a copy of the summons when
you're physically in the jurisdiction
2. Long arm statute gives the state courts jurisdiction over
persons who are served while outside the boundaries of the
state. Long arm statutes vary from state to state and normally
lists the contacts required (domicile, use or ownership or
possession of in state property, actions arising out of in state
tortious acts, insuring in state people or property, contracts to
be performed in whole or in part in state, etc.)
1. if an out of state party does not fit a description in the
long arm statute, the state court will not have PJ over him
2. if he does, the exercise of jurisdiction must still satisfy
constitutional due process requirements (minimum
contacts)
ii.
Minimum contacts - contact with forum state is enough that
it's fair for court to assert jurisdiction
1. Corporations agent must have minimum contacts with
the state in which he is sued just as the corporation must
have minimum contacts
ii.
Domicile - legal residence permits court to exercise jurisdiction;
can be obtained by substitute service
iii.
Consent - can be express (via contract, parties agree which
state will have jurisdiction), or implied (ex. if you drive on the
roads of NY you can be sued for actions connected with your
driving on roads of NY, even if you live in another state - nonresident motorist statute makes consent implicit)
1. If a corporation assigns an agent for service of process,
then they have expressly consented to PJ