Pennoyer v. Neff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Pennoyer v. Neff | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||||||
| Argued October, 1877 Decided May 13, 1878 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| No personal jurisdiction can be had over defendants who are physically absent from the state or have not consented to the court's jurisdiction. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Morrison Waite Associate Justices: Nathan Clifford, Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, David Davis, Stephen Johnson Field, William Strong, Joseph Philo Bradley, Ward Hunt |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Field Dissent by: Hunt |
||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||
| U.S. Const. Amend. XIV | ||||||||||
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that there is no personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant is physically present in the state, consents to the court's jurisdiction, or is one over whom the court has power.
Contents |
[edit] Factual and procedural background
Marcus Neff hired an attorney, John H. Mitchell, to help him with paperwork for a land grant. Mitchell later sued Neff in the Oregon state court system for unpaid bills; Neff was not to be found there, so Mitchell won the lawsuit by default. When Mitchell won the lawsuit in February 1866, Neff's land grant hadn't yet been conferred. Mitchell, possibly waiting for the arrival of the grant, waited until July 1866 to get a writ of attachment on the property. The court later ordered the land seized and sold in order to pay the judgment. Mitchell bought the land at that very auction and transferred the title to Sylvester Pennoyer. In 1874, Neff sued Pennoyer in federal court to recover his land. Neff won, and Pennoyer appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
[edit] Issue
The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a court could order property owned by an out-of-state resident to be seized and sold where the out-of-state resident was not served actual notice, and where that property was not in the possession of the out-of-state resident at the time of the lawsuit.
[edit] Result
The Supreme Court found for Neff. In order for the trial court to have jurisdiction over the property, said property needed to be attached (seized) before the proceedings. Constructive notice is not enough to inform a person living in another state, except for cases affecting the personal status of the plaintiff (like divorce); or the case is in rem and the property sought is within the boundaries of the state. The result would have been different had Neff owned property in Oregon before he was sued there by Mitchell. The law assumes that property is always in the possession of the owner, and the owner therefore knows what happens to his property; therefore, attachment of the property makes constructive notice sufficient.
[edit] Concurrence
[edit] Dissent
Justice Hunt
[edit] Subsequent history
This case is no longer valid law in the United States where in personam jurisdiction is concerned. See below.
[edit] Later developments in the doctrine
The doctrines governing personal jurisdiction have spawned a great deal of discourse within the Supreme Court, with many cases fine-tuning the concept. Prominent among these are International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (holding that jurisdiction must be premised on minimum contacts, such that maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"), and Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) (holding that the intentional presence of an individual within a state was nevertheless sufficient contact to provide jurisdiction).
[edit] See also
[edit] Trivia
- Pennoyer v. Neff is considered somewhat of a milestone amongst law students and is viewed as the first true introduction to how strikingly complex legal issues can be. At some law schools, it is the first case new students read in civil procedure class, and the professor may spend two or three weeks quizzing and challenging students on various aspects of the case, a traditional initiation into the Socratic method. The actual text of the case is notoriously obfuscative and verbose, even for a civil procedure case. This being the case, some law schools have done away with teaching the case all together.
[edit] Further reading
- Borchers, Patrick J. The Death of the Constitutional Law of Personal Jurisdiction: From Pennoyer to Burnham and Back Again 24 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 19 (1990)
- Perdue, Wendy Collins Sin, Scandal, and Substantive Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction and Pennoyer Reconsidered, 62 Wash. Law Rev. 479 (1987)
- Tocklin, Adrian Pennoyer v. Neff: The Hidden Agenda of Stephen J. Field 28 Seton Hall Law Rev. 75 (1997)
