Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Hess v Pawloski  (Read 4061 times)

ElizaB

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1178
  • What a sweet face?
    • View Profile
Hess v Pawloski
« on: September 09, 2005, 05:46:32 PM »
Can someone explain Hess v Pawloski to me?  I don't understand what Hess's complaint was???  How did the situation supposedly violate due process?  Anyone know?
Attending: Texas

jimmyjohn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Hess v Pawloski
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2005, 06:07:55 PM »
Can someone explain Hess v Pawloski to me?  I don't understand what Hess's complaint was???  How did the situation supposedly violate due process?  Anyone know?

Did you read Pennoyer?  If you did, you will see that Hess is basing his complaint on that. He says that since he is a nonresident of Massachusetts that Mass. cannot exercise in personam (personal) jurisdiction over him without his consent.

Basically the Massachusetts law said that if you drive on our roads you consent to our jurisdiction over you.  Thus, they appoint an "agent" by which they can serve you process and can hold you accountable for your driving activities in that state.

Hess is complaining that this violates his due process because he never actually consented to this appoint and as a nonresident he must consent in order to be under the personal jurisdiction of Mass.  He also challenges the constitutionality of the law I believe.

rezipsa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hess v Pawloski
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2005, 07:19:31 PM »
Ah...the good ol' days of Civpro.

Jimmyjohn is correct - driving on a particular state road consents to jurisdiction.  On the flip side of this, if the driver was injured, they would want the state help (police, ambulances, hospitals) to assist him.

Jackson Smith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Hess v Pawloski
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2005, 12:18:58 AM »
Pennoyer was hell to read. Just dreadful the way some of the older cases are written.
3.5/160
In: UK($$), UArkansas($$), UPitt, UAkron($$)
Out: UDub, ND
Pending: Too many to list

ElizaB

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1178
  • What a sweet face?
    • View Profile
Re: Hess v Pawloski
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2005, 03:17:43 PM »
Thanks for the response!

That actually helped alot! 

I tried to read & brief the Pennoyer/Neff case, the Hess case & Shoe International all in one sitting on a Friday afternoon and by the time I got to Hess it wasn't making any sense anymore.  But your responses really helped.  I'm going to take a second look at it with your ideas in mind.
Attending: Texas

Bobo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Hess v Pawloski
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2005, 03:25:20 AM »
Also, I think it can help you w. your understanding of minimal contacts and how that plays into long arm jurisdiction.

Trancer

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Conan the Republican!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Hess v Pawloski
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2005, 09:58:24 AM »
Civ Pro makes me hot...
Its not the size of the army that counts, its the fury of the onslaught.
Seton Hall, August 05

_retired_

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
    • View Profile
Re: Hess v Pawloski
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2005, 10:01:45 AM »
Civ Pro is hot.  You gotta have a good prof though.  It completely sucks according to everyone in the other section.