Content deleted Content added
Line 46:
And what Friedenthal, Kane and Miller are saying is that, regarding the distinction between and among ''in personam'' jurisdiction, ''in rem'' jurisdiction, and ''quasi in rem'' jurisdiction, the Supreme Court wasn't fooled by terminology either. The Court recognized that all three categories are simply subsets of '''personal jurisdiction''' -- because a legal action against someone's property is, in economic substance, a legal action against ''that person'', even if that person's liability is limited to losing ''just that particular property''. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
FAMSPEAR: The claim made in the article is unverified. Rather than simply and respectfully presenting one good source for your contention, as I kindly requested, you ramble on about your weak authority and memories of law school. Don't patronize me and don't embarrass yourself. Act like a professional and deliver a source that clearly supports your contention. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hhblount|Hhblount]] ([[User talk:Hhblount|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hhblount|contribs]]) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== I agree this section needs work ==
| |||