Personal jurisdiction

There are three types of personal jurisdiction. The three types are in personam jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction and quasi in rem jurisdiction. In personam jurisdiction is when the forum has power over the person of a particular defendant. In rem jurisdiction is when the court has power to adjudicate the rights of all persons in the world with respect to a particular item of property. Quasi in rem jurisdiction is when the court has the power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property within the court's control.

Traditionally, in civil proceedings in American courts, the defendant or land in dispute was required to be physically served with process in the state where the court sits. This is commonly referred to as "tag" jurisdiction. Under the old rules, the United States Supreme Court declared that "[p]rocess from tribunals of one State cannot run into another State, and summon parties there domiciled to leave its territory and respond to proceedings against them." Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 727 (1877). It is important to note, that Pennoyer v. Neff has been overruled (nullified). In Shaffer v. Heitner, the Court replaced the Pennoyer v. Neff line of case law when it held: "all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny." 433 U.S. 186, 212 (1977).

In the modern era, the reach of personal jurisdiction has been expanded by judicial interpretations and legislative enactments. States in the United States have enacted so-called long-arm statutes, by which courts in a state can exercise jurisdiction over a party located outside the state, so long as the party has sufficient "minimum contacts" with the State seeking to exercise its jurisdiction. The "minimum contacts" test, first announced by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, allows jurisdiction to be constitutionally exercised when the defendant has engaged in activities that are purposefully directed within a state, even though the defendant is not physically present within that State. 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945). Sufficient "minimum contacts" has been further delineated in many subsequent cases. For example in Hanson v. Denckla, the Court proclaimed the "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of the ["minimum contacts"] rule will vary with the nature and quality of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege or conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws." 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The additional requirement of "'purposeful availment' ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random,fortuitous,' or "attenuated' contacts, [citations omitted] or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person [citation ommitted]. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).

Venue and personal jurisdiction are closely related for practical purposes. A lawyer should usually perform joint analysis of personal jurisdiction and venue issues. Personal jurisdiction is largely a constitutional requirement, though also shaped by state long-arm statutes and FRCP 4, while venue is purely statutory.

It is possible for either venue or personal jurisdiction to be the exclusive factor prohibiting a court from hearing a case. Consider these examples:

• Personal jurisdiction is the limiting factor. In World-Wide Volkswagen, plaintiffs sued in Oklahoma state court an automobile dealership based in New York for damages from an explosion that occurred on June 11, 1977, as they drove the car through Oklahoma. Had the plaintiffs sued in U.S. federal court sited in Oklahoma, personal jurisdiction against the dealership would have been unavailable, as the dealership did not have minimum contacts with the forum state, but venue would have been proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the general federal venue statute, because Oklahoma was a state in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. However, the United States Supreme Court found that the defendants (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.) did not have the minimum contacts with Oklahoma necessary to create personal jurisdiction there. [World-Wide Volkswagen was one of the "defendants"; the case cited is WWV Corp (original defendant) v. Woodson (the Oklahoma state judge) ]

• Venue is the limiting factor. Suppose Jerry resides in California. Tom from Nevada wants to sue Jerry for battery which Jerry committed against Tom in California. Tom knows Jerry is going to a week-long conference in South Carolina. Tom realizes that Jerry would settle a suit that would take place in South Carolina, because it would be too expensive to defend. So, during Jerry's trip, Tom serves Jerry with process for an action filed in South Carolina federal court. The federal court has personal jurisdiction, based on Jerry's presence in South Carolina at the time process was served (transient service of process). However, venue is improper under § 1391.

• Prerogancy
• Sui iuris

Official Website of the Supreme Court of the United States