Civil
Procedure Class Notes
We’d
like to finish Shaffer, do McGee, Hanson, and look at another case that we
weren’t asked to read. We’d like to
start Worldwide Volkswagen tomorrow.
Review
Shaffer
seeks to
make Shoe the standard
for more or less all jurisdictional questions.
In
a quasi in rem action, specific jurisdiction depends on how closely
related the defendant’s contact to the forum is to the claim itself.
One
more hypothetical
I
live in
What
are my contacts with the forum? I have a
house there. The contact has not
changed. What obligations go along with
my contact? How related is my claim to
my contact with the forum? Is this more like a suit for specific performance on the land,
or is it more like an auto accident in
I’m
getting sued for something that I didn’t do.
The
court would probably find jurisdiction here, but we’re on a spectrum; it’s sort
of a grey area.
A
review of two types of quasi in rem
1. An action to
secure a preexisting claim in the property or extinguish someone else’s. This is like the specific performance
example.
2. An action
where you try to substitute for personal jurisdiction, in that you apply the defendant’s
property to satisfy a claim that is unrelated to the property. This is more like both the auto accident in
The
grey area is in Type 2.
On
the other hand, in a true in rem action, the local court will always
have personal jurisdiction because the contact is 100% related to the claim.
Let’s
go back to
Justice
Marshall says that if the state had such a pressing interest, they should have
included it in the statute.
In
the aftermath of this case, the state of
We
have traditionally considered the rules of jurisdiction based on fairness to
the defendant. But the dissenters in Shaffer
suggest that the state has an interest in protecting its citizens and that if
it articulates that interest, we ought to give some credence to it.
The
court teases out some elements that go into the “minimum contacts” test that
are easily stated but hard to define.
Notice
and foreseeability
Prior
to the statute, you might assume, but would not know, that you might be
subject to jurisdiction in
Concurring
opinions in Shaffer
Justice
Powell would reserve judgment on the broad statement that all in rem
actions will have sufficiently related contacts. He wants to leave that open.
Justice
Stevens agrees with the judgment but not the reasoning. He thinks this case is all about notice (the
hidden strand of Pennoyer).
Justice
Brennan agrees that Shoe controls here, but he fears that the state
ignores the State’s interests.
Justice
Rehnquist recused himself, possibly because he owned
stock in Greyhound or had some other kind of personal connection to the case.
Cases
on specific jurisdiction
We’re
going back in time to 1957 and 1958.
They are decided at about the same time by the same judges with pretty
similar facts…yet, the Court comes to two rather different results. What’s the difference?
What’s
going on in McGee? A guy buys
life insurance from a company that was based in
McGee
wins in
Who
gets to make these front line decisions about jurisdiction? The
If
you have a defense on the merits of the case, collateral attack is very
risky.
What
is the result of the case? There are
sufficient contacts for
Black
says that there was a substantial connection between the forum and the defendant.
What
contacts are there? The insured mails
his premiums to
Is
there anything troubling about being able to sue an out-of-state insurance
company in your home state when you’ve been paying premiums for years and years
and they refuse to pay your claim?
It’s
very hard to divorce these cases from the circumstances of the parties in each
case. There are poor dead folks in both.
Could
the Court be pushing it to get the result they want?
Does
the state of
In
other cases, we’ve heard a lot about the defendant’s interest, but in this case
we hear a lot more about the plaintiff’s interest and the state’s interest.
What
about notice? Is there notice or foreseeability in this case? Did the insurance company have an idea that
they might be sued in
Wasn’t
Black the guy who had trouble with the wishy-washy standard of Shoe?
Stevie Y. describes McGee as the “outer extreme” of jurisdictional
aggressiveness. He speculates that if
this case were to come up today, the modern Court would not come to the same
conclusion. The contacts are weak…but
there’s something about this.
There seem to be contacts that warrant jurisdiction. It doesn’t seem to be unfair.
What
are the facts of this case?
A
woman has a trust established in
There’s
a probate court in
What’s
the result?
Tomorrow,
we’ll start asking why, through applying contacts analysis, this one comes out
that way.