Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)  (Read 1978 times)

chrisfield

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Texas Tech ---> Fall 2006
    • View Profile
Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« on: August 20, 2006, 07:41:25 PM »
Anyone know the issue here?

How about the precise legal issues?

Just curious if I am even close here.

starter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2006, 07:47:32 PM »
You're probably not close to be honest.  You will soon find out that everyone is lost on this case because it is notoriously difficult.

http://www.suasponte.org/archives/000392.php

This will help explain the case and all of the litigants.  Just know that most of this stuff isn't even good law any more, as you will find out soon.

4DClaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2006, 07:48:19 PM »
Just read the case this morning. Not a very fun time! Here are a few initial thoughts:
- Main point: States only have jurisdiction over people and property that are within their borders
- For in personam personal jurisdiction, process most be served to someone who either is a resident of the state or present within the state at the time of service
- For in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction, the property must be attached at the outset of the case
Georgetown

blawg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2006, 12:48:02 AM »
Just read the case this morning. Not a very fun time! Here are a few initial thoughts:
- Main point: States only have jurisdiction over people and property that are within their borders
- For in personam personal jurisdiction, process most be served to someone who either is a resident of the state or present within the state at the time of service
- For in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction, the property must be attached at the outset of the case

Just to add, one can always consent to a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over them, of course.  It's probably so obvious that it need not be stated, but I've learned that not everything is obvious to everyone, and different people may miss different aspects of something.
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

New York

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2006, 12:31:45 PM »
Just read the case this morning. Not a very fun time! Here are a few initial thoughts:
- Main point: States only have jurisdiction over people and property that are within their borders
- For in personam personal jurisdiction, process most be served to someone who either is a resident of the state or present within the state at the time of service
- For in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction, the property must be attached at the outset of the case

I thought the main point for affirming was that the property needs to be attached. Although the personal jurisdiction dicta is the more important precedent. 

no?

Also, If I remember correctly, the 14th Amendment was not ratified at the time of the first lawsuit.


4DClaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2006, 01:37:38 PM »
Yeah - the in rem stuff is the actual holding. But the points about personal jurisdiction have the broader implications in terms of precedent. But what do I know - I just started!

Just read the case this morning. Not a very fun time! Here are a few initial thoughts:
- Main point: States only have jurisdiction over people and property that are within their borders
- For in personam personal jurisdiction, process most be served to someone who either is a resident of the state or present within the state at the time of service
- For in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction, the property must be attached at the outset of the case

I thought the main point for affirming was that the property needs to be attached. Although the personal jurisdiction dicta is the more important precedent. 

no?

Also, If I remember correctly, the 14th Amendment was not ratified at the time of the first lawsuit.


Georgetown

be10dwn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2006, 08:26:46 AM »
god how I hated pennoyer.  that is all

jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2006, 08:35:33 AM »
Pennoyer made me question my decision to attend law school.  I think its almost cruel to make 1Ls read Pennoyer as their first civpro case.

4DClaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2006, 09:14:27 AM »
I've read a few of the cases after Pennoyer, and they aren't nearly as bad. International Shoe is almost written in English!
Georgetown