Civ pro final exam class notes #2

Jurisdiction

The court’s power to hear a case.

Personal jurisdiction

The court has power over the parties themselves by virtue of its power to enter a judgement against them.

Subject matter jurisdiction

The court’s ability to hear the types of claims at issue (rather than jurisdiction over the parties).

A court can have personal jurisdiction over the parties but not have

Subject matter jurisdiction over their claims.

What jurisdiction can be waived and what cannot be waived.

Personal jurisdiction = can be waived

Subject-matter jurisdiction = cannot be waived

A court can assert personal jurisdiction only if the exercise of power is authorized by

(1) statute; and

(2) is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution (due process clause).

Pennoyer is not

The current state of the law. This area of law is still evolving.

Territorial jurisdiction:

A court can, consistent with the due process clause, assert personal jurisdiction over any defendant who is found within the court’s territorial boundaries (found within the state the court has authority).

Kane v. New Jersey

New Jersey could require out-of-state motorists to officially name someone in New Jersey/appoint a New Jersey agent to receive process as a condition of using their state’s highway (If you’re an out-of-state driver using New Jersey highways, then you are required to have someone in New Jersey to be your agent to receive process.) The statute limited the consent of process to matters in New Jersey for incidents related to driving in New Jersey.

Hess v. Pawloski; Massachusetts law vs. New Jersey law?

New Jersey law: Requires out-of-state drivers to formally appoint an agent to receive legal papers. Used express consent through a formal appointment. Massachusetts law: Automatically treated out-of-state drivers as appointing a state official to receive legal papers. Used implied consent through driving in the state.

Just because someone from another state does business in a state does not automatically mean they consent to being sued in that state's courts. Why not? (Hess v Pawloski)

Because doing business in a state is not the same thing as agreeing to that state's personal jurisdiction.

Implied consent

Someone is treated as agreeing to something through their actions rather than explicitly saying or writing that they agree. Your actions are treated as agreement.

Hess v. Pawloski (key takeaways)

(implied consent and agent appointed to you by law [for service of process])

By driving your vehicle into Massachusetts, you did two things:

(1) You consented to jurisdiction in a case arising from your operation of the motor vehicle.

(2) You appointed a state official (the registrar of motor vehicle) to be your agent for service of process.

What does it mean to say a corporation is a fiction? Why is that relevant to jurisdiction?

It exists on paper and acts through its employees, directors, and shareholders How are courts supposed to exercise jurisdiction over a “foreign” corporation when the corporation’s activity caused injury in the forum state.

What do the theories of consent and presence mean with respect to the territorial principle?

Consent theory: a corporation could transact business in a state in which it was not incorporated only with that state’s consent. Thus, as a condition of doing business, a state could require a foreign corporation to consent to service of process through the appointment of an in-state agent to receive process. (a state could force a foreign corporation doing business in their territory to get an agent to receive process). [However, some courts also applied this principle when the corporation did not designate an agent to receive process and, thus, could be said only to have granted implied consent to such a designation through its in-state activity.]

Presence theory: a corporation, by engaging in activity within a state, established a presence through those activities for jurisdictional purposes. This doctrine measured the propriety of a state’s assertion of jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in terms of the corporation’s actual activities in the forum state. [However, a court lost its power over a nonresident corporation once it ceased doing business in the state.]

What does it mean to be “doing business” in a state?

It was unclear what it meant.