Download
1 / 15
150 likes | 255 Views
CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS C & F. Fall 2005 Class 7 Personal Jurisdiction September 7 2005. Hurricane Katrina Day of Prayer and Communion. 8 p.m. , Campus-wide Prayer Vigil, Columbus School of Law, Knights of Columbus Courtyard 9 p.m. , Eucharistic Adoration, Caldwell Chapel.
E N D
CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS C & F Fall 2005 Class 7 Personal Jurisdiction September 7 2005
Hurricane KatrinaDay of Prayer and Communion • 8 p.m., Campus-wide Prayer Vigil,Columbus School of Law, Knights of Columbus Courtyard • 9 p.m., Eucharistic Adoration, Caldwell Chapel
Hurricane KatrinaVolunteers If you are interested in volunteering to help the displaced veterans at the Armed Forces Retirement Home: • please stop by the UCSPE office (Pryzbyla 204) and provide your name, contact information and the times you are able/willing to work on the sign-up sheet provided. • Or you may send an e-mail with the same information to cua-ucspe@cua.edu. • You may also call 202-319-5291. Please indicate whether you have transportation and/or if you are certified to operate university vehicles.
WRAP-UP: DIVERSITY • You should understand the complete diversity and amount in controversy requirements • You should know the traditional aggregation rules
ANOTHER HYPO • Barbie (CA) and Ken (CA) are equal partners in a dressmaking business called “High Heels”. Skipper (N.Y.) orders 4 ball gowns from them. Barbie and Ken make the gowns and deliver them to Skipper along with an invoice for $90,000. After 18 months, Skipper has not paid Barbie and Ken a cent.
HYPO CONTINUED • Barbie and Ken’s lawyer, Dawn, files an action in federal court, naming High Heels as plaintiff and claiming the amount of the $90,000 debt in damages. Barbie and Ken, as equal partners, each have an interest of $45,000 in the claim. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction even if it is a state law claim?
PENNOYER v. NEFF (1877) • In this case, the Supreme Court made clear that due process clause set limits on court’s power to hear cases over non-resident defendants • Pennoyer applied a traditional concept of jurisdiction, which required physical presence of the defendant or his property within the forum state or defendant’s consent
BREAKDOWN OF PENNOYER • Pennoyer proved too confining as the nation’s economy expanded and, in particular, interstate trade grew • Courts began to resort to legal fictions to permit personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants who were not physically present in the forum state, such as “implied consent” or “constructive presence”
INTERNATIONAL SHOE Co. v. WASHINGTON (1945) • LEADING MODERN CASE ON PERSONAL JURISDICTION
THE SUPREME COURT: MODERN STANDARD FOR PERSONAL JURISDICTION • According to Chief Justice Stone, what is the modern standard for a state’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant?
P. 568 CB • “But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Justice Black • Dissent
