Cases

Smith vs. Jones

September 12, 2011

Facts: Mitchell brought an action against Neff in an Oregon court to recover legal fees. By publication he served Neff, a nonresident, and obtained judgment by default. Thereafter, Neff learned of the sale of his property in Oregon to satisfy the judgment. He sued Pennoyer, the purchaser, in Oregon to recover his property. Neff argued that the Oregon court had no jurisdiction over him.

Issue: Is service by publication sufficient to give a state court in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident?

Rule: (Field, J.) A personal judgment against a nonresident served only by publication is invalid. For personal jurisdiction (as opposed to in rem jurisdiction over property) the defendant must come within the court’s jurisdiction by personal service within the state or by voluntarily submitting himself to service of process. In rem jurisdiction may be achieved by attaching the in-state property of an out-of-state defendant who otherwise could not be brought into the jurisdiction by in personam jurisdiction.

Dissent: (Hunt, J.) The states have the exclusive power to determine what notice is required to prospective defendants. As long as that notice is “reasonably likely” to communicate notice of the suit, is made in a good faith effort to notify him, and the defendant receives an opportunity to defend himself, the notice statute should be valid.

Kennedy vs. McCarty

November 4, 2011

Facts: Mitchell brought an action against Neff in an Oregon court to recover legal fees. By publication he served Neff, a nonresident, and obtained judgment by default. Thereafter, Neff learned of the sale of his property in Oregon to satisfy the judgment. He sued Pennoyer, the purchaser, in Oregon to recover his property. Neff argued that the Oregon court had no jurisdiction over him.

Issue: Is service by publication sufficient to give a state court in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident?

Rule: (Field, J.) A personal judgment against a nonresident served only by publication is invalid. For personal jurisdiction (as opposed to in rem jurisdiction over property) the defendant must come within the court’s jurisdiction by personal service within the state or by voluntarily submitting himself to service of process. In rem jurisdiction may be achieved by attaching the in-state property of an out-of-state defendant who otherwise could not be brought into the jurisdiction by in personam jurisdiction.

Dissent: (Hunt, J.) The states have the exclusive power to determine what notice is required to prospective defendants. As long as that notice is “reasonably likely” to communicate notice of the suit, is made in a good faith effort to notify him, and the defendant receives an opportunity to defend himself, the notice statute should be valid.

Graeves vs. Rodrigez

January 23, 2012

Facts: Mitchell brought an action against Neff in an Oregon court to recover legal fees. By publication he served Neff, a nonresident, and obtained judgment by default. Thereafter, Neff learned of the sale of his property in Oregon to satisfy the judgment. He sued Pennoyer, the purchaser, in Oregon to recover his property. Neff argued that the Oregon court had no jurisdiction over him.

Issue: Is service by publication sufficient to give a state court in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident?

Rule: (Field, J.) A personal judgment against a nonresident served only by publication is invalid. For personal jurisdiction (as opposed to in rem jurisdiction over property) the defendant must come within the court’s jurisdiction by personal service within the state or by voluntarily submitting himself to service of process. In rem jurisdiction may be achieved by attaching the in-state property of an out-of-state defendant who otherwise could not be brought into the jurisdiction by in personam jurisdiction.

Dissent: (Hunt, J.) The states have the exclusive power to determine what notice is required to prospective defendants. As long as that notice is “reasonably likely” to communicate notice of the suit, is made in a good faith effort to notify him, and the defendant receives an opportunity to defend himself, the notice statute should be valid.