Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Pennoyer V Neff  (Read 1933 times)

uscitalian1982

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 166
    • AOL Instant Messenger - njrayj
    • View Profile
    • Email
Pennoyer V Neff
« on: September 14, 2006, 05:27:50 PM »
Hello,
I have read many cases after this one all of which I understand.  However, I still can't grasp this one.  What is the one or two most important things that I need to take from this case?  Thank you! 

Jumboshrimps

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 598
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2006, 06:35:06 PM »
1) In order to sue somebody for something he has done, he needs to either be in the forum state or have property in the forum state because the states are sovereign and do not have endless powers over each other.

2) In order to sue somebody for something concerning his property in the forum state (as opposed to something he has done), you're good to go if the property is in fact in the forum state (for reasons stated in #1).

3) Pennoyer is bad law, because the due process clause of the 14th amendment (which did not exist at the time) has created a scheme making state sovereignty almost irrelevant to the personal jurisdiction analysis.

colforbin

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2006, 08:16:05 PM »
I was under the impression that Pennoyer was not bad law, and that in 1990, The Supreme Court of US majority opinion held that Pennoyer and the test under INternational SHoe could coexist. Is that the case or am I missing something?

beegees

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2006, 11:13:53 PM »
I'm assuming that this is for civ pro? What book are you using?

Woof!

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2006, 11:37:39 PM »
You shouldnt take much from it because most of it has been shredded by more recent opinions that evolved from it. Think of Pennoyer as a tree with International Shoe on the In Personam branch and Shaffer on the In Rem branch. Pennoyer is a starting point for CivPro because every major personal jurisdiction case flowed from it. The only part of Pennoyer that is a important is the idea of applying due process to power of the courts over a person.

pinkybella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2006, 06:56:07 PM »
1) In order to sue somebody for something he has done, he needs to either be in the forum state or have property in the forum state because the states are sovereign and do not have endless powers over each other.

2) In order to sue somebody for something concerning his property in the forum state (as opposed to something he has done), you're good to go if the property is in fact in the forum state (for reasons stated in #1).

3) Pennoyer is bad law, because the due process clause of the 14th amendment (which did not exist at the time) has created a scheme making state sovereignty almost irrelevant to the personal jurisdiction analysis.

We read Pennoyer a few weeks ago and this was my interpretation of the case.

New York

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2006, 07:32:26 PM »
A state is all powerful within its boundaries but impotent outside of its boundaries.

Defendant must be within state, for state to have in personam jurisdiction over him. AND he must be served personally.

If defendant has property within the state, the proceeding will be quasi in rem, and the property must be attached prior to the litigation(HOLDING). In these cases contructive notice is adequate because the law assumes that property is always in possession of the owner.


CocoPuff

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2006, 08:06:51 PM »
I know this is not what you're asking, but don't worry too much about Pennoyer. When we went over the case, I was having nightmares about the difference between in rem & quasi in rem. I absolutely did not understand it and still ended up doing well in Civ Pro.
There's just this for consolation: an hour here or there when our lives seem, against all odds and expectations, to burst open and give us everything we've ever imagined"

LostMyMonkeys

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2006, 11:56:48 PM »
Damn.

Attach the damn property at the BEGINNING of the suit. Not after.

Thats all.

Nice ass won't get you through your whole life. When you turn 30 you better have a personality

andreverdun

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pennoyer V Neff
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2006, 05:38:22 PM »
"d**mn.

Attach the d**mn property at the BEGINNING of the suit. Not after.

Thats all."

There you go, that is a breif of Pennoyer in a nut shell