Talk:Personal jurisdiction (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
My understanding is that "in personam" and "in rem" are both species of Personal Jurisdiction.
This is based on what my Civil Procedure professor at UCLA Law has said.
Contents |
[edit] Does anyone else think the "acquiring personal jurisdiciton" section is wrong?
I'm reading that section and I think it's almost entirely wrong. While no doubt service of process is a necessary for personal jurisdiction, it is not sufficient. Maybe this is sufficient internationally, but I know it's not in the US. Under the language as used in the article, I could serve someone in state A, for an action I bring in state B, and acquire personal jurisdiction in state B. That's not right.
If this is an international issue perhaps we need to clarify. I'm sure that there is some concept of personal jurisdiction, but it may not be as fragmented as the US'. mmmbeerT / C / ? 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
i moved that stuff to notice.
[edit] I agree this section needs work
In the United States, there are at least four ways that a court can obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case. Service of a summons and complaint is one way. The voluntary submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court is a second way. The participation of the defendant in the proceedings of the court, even without the specific intent to submit to the jurisdiction of the court is a third way. That can be a trap for the unwary. The fourth way is service of notice by publication after attempts at personal service have failed. This section, as written, is incomplete and misleading. Kmorford 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Venue?
Shouldn't venue be included in the list of required items for a court to have any power other than to dismiss a case? Speaking of which, it should probably be spelled out more clearly that a court can dismiss a case (and must) without these things... Really, it seems like they're starting a list of the Rule 12(b) motions which is overkill. Twinotter 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Internet jurisdiction
My opinion is that the stuff about internet jurisdiction is very interesting and should be expanded on. It would be neat if Wikipedia became the primary source of information for Google searches regarding the topic. However, I feel it is inappropriate in the personal jurisdiction article, because it is too specific. The rest of the material in the article is very fundamental. If there is no objection, I will remove it, link to it, and add stuff. hlsgrad (not logged in).
