Yeazell, p. 94-168: The Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power
Stevie Y. will now bring us up to date on the changes in the Pennoyer formulation of personal jurisdiction that have come about over the years.
1. Redefining Constitutional Power
Pennoyer gets confusing if you try to apply it to corporations.† Corporations donít have physical reality, so they canít be ďpresentĒ to receive process in a fundamental sense.† They also canít (in the conventional sense) ďconsentĒ to a courtís power.† Weíll look at a case that tries to figure all this stuff out.
2. Absorbing In Rem Jurisdiction
There were two issues that were not discussed in Shoe:
1. How does the ruling apply to jurisdiction over individual people?
2. What impact does the ruling have on the Pennoyer concept of in rem jurisdiction (and quasi in rem jurisdiction)?
Case: Shaffer v. Heitner
3. Specific Jurisdiction: The Modern Cases
Here is some practice in applying specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction.† We should ask ourselves if modern changes in communications and transportation render the doctrine of Shoe obsolete.
Case: Hanson v. Denckla
Case: Pavlovich v. Superior Court† [Supplement: Yeazell, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE at 381 (2003).]
4. General Jurisdiction
We think that for every corporate or individual defendant there exists at least one forum that has general jurisdiction over that defendant.† For a corporation, this may be the state of incorporation or the state where they have their headquarters.† For an individual, the state of general jurisdiction is wherever that person is domiciled.
It is suggested that there actually could be some cases where a forum other than those mentioned above could have general jurisdiction, but itís really hard to find any cases that bear this out.