Leslie Fischman
Assignment #4
Prof. Ellison
Due: 3/4/08
Pennoyer v. Neff, World-Wide Volkswagen Co. v. Woodson, International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington & The Evolution of Law
By: Leslie A. Fischman
I.
The Pennoyer v. Neff case involves the issue of depriving an individual of his property without due process of law. Whereby, an action was brought by Neff, a non-resident of Oregon, against Pennoyer, to recover land in Oregon that Neff claims title and right of possession to. Pennoyer set up a title in himself and Neff claims that the title was given to Pennoyer without due process of law. Pennoyer answered and denied Neff’s claims to the land situated under Pennoyer’s possession. The judgment was rendered in favor of Neff, causing Pennoyer to sue out this writ of error.
As a result, the case was tried and the record of the trial was sent to the appellate court for further examination of the alleged errors regarding the service of process, jurisdiction, minimum contacts, and the defendants (Neff’s) 14th Amendment rights to due process of law in the forum state (the state in which the action is brought).
The central issue in controversy during the Pennoyer v. Neff case, was whether due process of law was upheld in the court’s decision making at the trial. In other words, due process would have ensured that all legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, were followed for each individual (including Neff a non-resident of the state of Oregon) so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment would result (dictionary.com). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, to determine whether placing an ad in an Oregon paper can be considered an adequate means of notifying the defendant and summoning them in the forum state. However, because Neff was a non-resident of the state he had no way of accessing the information summoning him to court, and assuming Pennoyer had no other means to contact the defendant outside the state, the ruling was unfair to Neff and in turn violated his 14th Amendment right to due process. Thus restricting the territorial limits of the State’s jurisdiction over non-resident individuals, so that “any attempt to exercise authority beyond those limits is an illegitimate assumption of power” (p.5).
The Code of Oregon states that “no person is subject to the court unless he appear in the court, or be found within the State or be a resident thereof, or have property therein, and in that last case, only to the extent of such property at the time of the jurisdiction attached.” Therefore, the existence of this statute supports Neff’s objection to the actions made by the court who did not legally have jurisdiction over the land, nor legal jurisdiction of Neff who is not a citizen of the state therein, thus limiting the court’s jurisdiction over people (including Neff) that own property in Oregon. The point at issue is whether the state of Oregon did or did not have either in personum jurisdiction or in rem jurisdiction in the preceding case, which they did not according to Oregon statutes. This case brought up an important issue regarding the laws that apply to non-residents of the state and issues of fairness in regards to due process of law and what constitutes adequate and fair notification of service of process of non-residents. In addition this case raised the question, “If you own property in a State, are you under the jurisdiction of that State?”
In Neff’s case the answer would be no, because under due process, Neff did not have sufficient minimum contacts in the forum state to be considered liable to Oregon statutes, that would enable the state to have jurisdiction over his property as a non-resident of the state. Therefore as a non-resident Neff was not personally subject to that state’s laws. In addition, by not being within the territorial limits of the state he “cannot be served with any process by which he can be brought personally within the power of the court” nor can he be held liable for his failure to appear in court, when he was not sufficiently warned, when the court proceeded without him present (p.11).
II.
The International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington case “addressed the question of what activities by a corporation within a particular state will subject it to suit within that state consistent with due process concepts.” This case held that the state had jurisdiction when there was a sufficient number of minimum contacts (of the corporation) in the forum state.
The court’s decision was based on issues of fairness and reasonableness. The court’s ruling was based on the fact that because the corporation (appellant) had “continuous flow of their products into the state, was sufficient to constitute doing business in the state so as to make the appellant amenable to suit in its (the state’s) courts.”
The court based its decision on that fact that it would not be considered unconstitutional and a burden on the defendant nor a violation of his 14th Amendment right to due process. In other words, the defendant did meet the minimum contact standards which “require[d] that there were sufficient activities of the defendant in the forum state to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.”
In this case, the power of the state’s authority and personal jurisdiction was upheld. Thus, enabling the state to impose statutes that uphold Congress’s exercise of commerce power, which “authorizes the states, in specified ways, to regulate interstate commerce or impose burdens upon it.”
The court’s decision was based on the fact that because the corporation conducts business within the state and exercises the privileges of doing so, and enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state, then it would not be unfair for them to respond to a suit in connection with their activities within the state.
III.
The World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson case, petitioners claimed that Oklahoma’s exercise of jurisdiction over them was not within the limits of that state’s jurisdiction under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This case involved a car accident that occurred while a family was driving across Oklahoma and were struck from behind on their way to Arizona. The family “brought suit against the manufacturer (Audi), its importer (Volkswagen), its regional distributor (World-Wide), and its retailer dealer (Seaway).”
The point at issue in question between the plaintiff and the defendant is whether Oklahoma court can practice in personum jurisdiction over the defendants under the given circumstances. This case brought up issues regarding forseeability, addressing a similar issue brought up in the Pennoyer v. Neff case about the types of minimum contacts that would satisfy the requirements needed to determine the state’s jurisdiction. However, the key issue in this case was whether “the defendants contacts with the forum state are such that the defendant can foresee that he will be held under the forum state’s jurisdiction if conflict arises.”
The court’s ruling illustrates that forseeability alone was not enough to justify unfair personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause, but that what should be considered is that the defendant should have foreseen that his “conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Essentially, this would determine whether Oklahoma could exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, so long as there exists minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state in question.
Thus, the issue arising in this particular case, narrowed the concepts of what constitutes minimum contacts in that state. The court ended up rejecting the notion of forseeability as sufficient to claim that the defendants should be responsible for what happened and should have foreseen the risks that they could incur when their product (automobile) would be driven the distance to Arizona. However, the court ruled against posing any “unreasonable burdens” on the defendant, stressing that minimum contacts protect the defendant from being sued in a remote or inconvenient forum, and that forseeability alone does not adequately fulfill the kind of contacts that would be sufficient for due process requirements. As a result, because the court found that the petitioners did not have sufficient minimum “contacts, ties, or relations” with the State of Oklahoma, the judgment was reversed.
IV. Conclusion
All three cases involve some debate over the territorial limits of each State’s authority. These cases raise questions regarding the state’s authority over persons and property owned within the state by non-residents of the state. According to these three cases, there has been some evolution of due process of law and issues regarding minimum contacts that determine the state’s authority over non-residents and what constitutes limited contact within the state to allow the court to have jurisdiction over the property owned by non-resident defendants. As time has progressed, the predictability of the law has given potential defendants the knowledge to conduct business practices in a way that they will be protected by the law, by structuring their conducting a way that will not make them liable to a suit. In addition, these cases have influenced the attention paid towards the courts interpretation of due process, by specifying what it protects individuals against and what it does not when applied to cases in the future.
Since Pennoyer v. Neff, the states have made changes to their laws regarding jurisdiction, to specify the state’s limitations and the jurisdiction they have over persons and property within the state and cases involving individuals who are considered non-residents of the state. These cases all involved issues regarding the reasonableness of the court’s decision making process, meaning that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable taking into account the litigants interests and the states interests.
Such cases also initiated a reassessment of the types of minimum contacts questioned, such as whether the defendant purposefully availed himself. “Purposeful availment” indicates that the defendant must know or reasonably anticipate that his activities could give rise to the cause of action in the forum (as was discussed in the World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson case). In addition, another minimum contact that was found to be questionable in these three cases was whether the defendant had “systematic and continuous activity in the state” (more specifically discussed in the Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe Corp. v. State of Washington cases). In addition, these cases have highlighted the importance of determining general (cause of actions outside the state) and specific jurisdiction (cause arising from activity within the state) in the court’s decision making process. So that in future cases, even if the cause of action did not occur within the state, as seen in the three cases discussed, it is still possible that the court can find sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction, if there are enough minimum contacts to issue the court’s jurisdiction over persons or property within the state. Additionally, the Pennoyer v. Neff case ensured that in future cases there should be adequate notice, notifying the defendant of a pending lawsuit, by any traditional methods of personal service due process.
All of these cases involved some evolution of placing restrictions on the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. However at the same time attempted to uphold the sovereignty of the state, minimizing the state’s jurisdiction over non-residents, and maintaining protection of the within state residents. The claims made in these cases questioned the state court’s exercise of in personum jurisdiction over non-residents of the state, thus limiting the state’s jurisdiction imposed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, to protect individuals against inconvenient litigation.
However, as society has evolved so has the law and the interpretation of law and what the due process clause of the constitution protects. In addition increase in the speed of communication, commerce, and transportation have made it less of burden on a defendant to respond to a suit in a another state, if he is able to engage in economic activity within a state other than the one he lives in. Which justifies the reasoning behind what the 14th Amendment does not protect a defendant from, such as, the inconvenience of travel, which not count as a significant burden on the defendant. Instead, by today’s standards due process can more accurately be justified and determined by the mobility of the defendant’s defense. In addition, fairness is not measured or required by the constitution in terms of holding the trial in a State that the defendants has the best contacts with, rather the defendant only needs to meet the minimum contact standards to be held liable for suit in that state.
Pennoyer v. Neff, International Shoe Corp. v. State of Washington, and World-Wide Volkwagon v. Woodson are cases that are all interrelated in terms of defining and structuring a State’s personal jurisdiction over persons and property within its territory. However as society has evolved so has the relevancy of prior rulings on future cases. These three cases illustrate a pattern of decreasing the State’s personal jurisdiction and upholding an individuals rights and protecting them from suit in state’s that they consider themselves non-residents of. For example, in World-Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson, there is already a trend toward re-establishing the State’s jurisdiction and the power of congress to regulate commerce between states. Therefore what may have protected the defendant in the Pennoyer v. Neff case, may longer be sufficient to protect individuals from suits as a non-resident conducting business or owning property within the state. Thus cases such as Pennoyer v. Neff that focused exclusively on the rights of the defendant, may be less relevant to today’s society, especially when applied to future cases. In addition the “model of society on which the International Shoe court based its opinion is no longer accurate” as a result of the time that has elapsed since then. In the past these cases have focused more on the individual’s rights, however as society has changed and the speed of commerce between states has evolved, it becomes increasingly necessary for the state’s to not only maintain their sovereignty, but change their focus in terms of how they make their judgments. The trend now illustrates a shift from state’s basing their decisions solely on past judgments (which have shown to be increasingly irrelevant overtime), and instead focus on how the decisions they make at the present will be predictive of future outcomes that will influence and affect the state and the individuals within its territory.
Assignment #4
Prof. Ellison
Due: 3/4/08
Pennoyer v. Neff, World-Wide Volkswagen Co. v. Woodson, International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington & The Evolution of Law
By: Leslie A. Fischman
I.
The Pennoyer v. Neff case involves the issue of depriving an individual of his property without due process of law. Whereby, an action was brought by Neff, a non-resident of Oregon, against Pennoyer, to recover land in Oregon that Neff claims title and right of possession to. Pennoyer set up a title in himself and Neff claims that the title was given to Pennoyer without due process of law. Pennoyer answered and denied Neff’s claims to the land situated under Pennoyer’s possession. The judgment was rendered in favor of Neff, causing Pennoyer to sue out this writ of error.
As a result, the case was tried and the record of the trial was sent to the appellate court for further examination of the alleged errors regarding the service of process, jurisdiction, minimum contacts, and the defendants (Neff’s) 14th Amendment rights to due process of law in the forum state (the state in which the action is brought).
The central issue in controversy during the Pennoyer v. Neff case, was whether due process of law was upheld in the court’s decision making at the trial. In other words, due process would have ensured that all legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, were followed for each individual (including Neff a non-resident of the state of Oregon) so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment would result (dictionary.com). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, to determine whether placing an ad in an Oregon paper can be considered an adequate means of notifying the defendant and summoning them in the forum state. However, because Neff was a non-resident of the state he had no way of accessing the information summoning him to court, and assuming Pennoyer had no other means to contact the defendant outside the state, the ruling was unfair to Neff and in turn violated his 14th Amendment right to due process. Thus restricting the territorial limits of the State’s jurisdiction over non-resident individuals, so that “any attempt to exercise authority beyond those limits is an illegitimate assumption of power” (p.5).
The Code of Oregon states that “no person is subject to the court unless he appear in the court, or be found within the State or be a resident thereof, or have property therein, and in that last case, only to the extent of such property at the time of the jurisdiction attached.” Therefore, the existence of this statute supports Neff’s objection to the actions made by the court who did not legally have jurisdiction over the land, nor legal jurisdiction of Neff who is not a citizen of the state therein, thus limiting the court’s jurisdiction over people (including Neff) that own property in Oregon. The point at issue is whether the state of Oregon did or did not have either in personum jurisdiction or in rem jurisdiction in the preceding case, which they did not according to Oregon statutes. This case brought up an important issue regarding the laws that apply to non-residents of the state and issues of fairness in regards to due process of law and what constitutes adequate and fair notification of service of process of non-residents. In addition this case raised the question, “If you own property in a State, are you under the jurisdiction of that State?”
In Neff’s case the answer would be no, because under due process, Neff did not have sufficient minimum contacts in the forum state to be considered liable to Oregon statutes, that would enable the state to have jurisdiction over his property as a non-resident of the state. Therefore as a non-resident Neff was not personally subject to that state’s laws. In addition, by not being within the territorial limits of the state he “cannot be served with any process by which he can be brought personally within the power of the court” nor can he be held liable for his failure to appear in court, when he was not sufficiently warned, when the court proceeded without him present (p.11).
II.
The International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington case “addressed the question of what activities by a corporation within a particular state will subject it to suit within that state consistent with due process concepts.” This case held that the state had jurisdiction when there was a sufficient number of minimum contacts (of the corporation) in the forum state.
The court’s decision was based on issues of fairness and reasonableness. The court’s ruling was based on the fact that because the corporation (appellant) had “continuous flow of their products into the state, was sufficient to constitute doing business in the state so as to make the appellant amenable to suit in its (the state’s) courts.”
The court based its decision on that fact that it would not be considered unconstitutional and a burden on the defendant nor a violation of his 14th Amendment right to due process. In other words, the defendant did meet the minimum contact standards which “require[d] that there were sufficient activities of the defendant in the forum state to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.”
In this case, the power of the state’s authority and personal jurisdiction was upheld. Thus, enabling the state to impose statutes that uphold Congress’s exercise of commerce power, which “authorizes the states, in specified ways, to regulate interstate commerce or impose burdens upon it.”
The court’s decision was based on the fact that because the corporation conducts business within the state and exercises the privileges of doing so, and enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state, then it would not be unfair for them to respond to a suit in connection with their activities within the state.
III.
The World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson case, petitioners claimed that Oklahoma’s exercise of jurisdiction over them was not within the limits of that state’s jurisdiction under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This case involved a car accident that occurred while a family was driving across Oklahoma and were struck from behind on their way to Arizona. The family “brought suit against the manufacturer (Audi), its importer (Volkswagen), its regional distributor (World-Wide), and its retailer dealer (Seaway).”
The point at issue in question between the plaintiff and the defendant is whether Oklahoma court can practice in personum jurisdiction over the defendants under the given circumstances. This case brought up issues regarding forseeability, addressing a similar issue brought up in the Pennoyer v. Neff case about the types of minimum contacts that would satisfy the requirements needed to determine the state’s jurisdiction. However, the key issue in this case was whether “the defendants contacts with the forum state are such that the defendant can foresee that he will be held under the forum state’s jurisdiction if conflict arises.”
The court’s ruling illustrates that forseeability alone was not enough to justify unfair personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause, but that what should be considered is that the defendant should have foreseen that his “conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Essentially, this would determine whether Oklahoma could exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, so long as there exists minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state in question.
Thus, the issue arising in this particular case, narrowed the concepts of what constitutes minimum contacts in that state. The court ended up rejecting the notion of forseeability as sufficient to claim that the defendants should be responsible for what happened and should have foreseen the risks that they could incur when their product (automobile) would be driven the distance to Arizona. However, the court ruled against posing any “unreasonable burdens” on the defendant, stressing that minimum contacts protect the defendant from being sued in a remote or inconvenient forum, and that forseeability alone does not adequately fulfill the kind of contacts that would be sufficient for due process requirements. As a result, because the court found that the petitioners did not have sufficient minimum “contacts, ties, or relations” with the State of Oklahoma, the judgment was reversed.
IV. Conclusion
All three cases involve some debate over the territorial limits of each State’s authority. These cases raise questions regarding the state’s authority over persons and property owned within the state by non-residents of the state. According to these three cases, there has been some evolution of due process of law and issues regarding minimum contacts that determine the state’s authority over non-residents and what constitutes limited contact within the state to allow the court to have jurisdiction over the property owned by non-resident defendants. As time has progressed, the predictability of the law has given potential defendants the knowledge to conduct business practices in a way that they will be protected by the law, by structuring their conducting a way that will not make them liable to a suit. In addition, these cases have influenced the attention paid towards the courts interpretation of due process, by specifying what it protects individuals against and what it does not when applied to cases in the future.
Since Pennoyer v. Neff, the states have made changes to their laws regarding jurisdiction, to specify the state’s limitations and the jurisdiction they have over persons and property within the state and cases involving individuals who are considered non-residents of the state. These cases all involved issues regarding the reasonableness of the court’s decision making process, meaning that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable taking into account the litigants interests and the states interests.
Such cases also initiated a reassessment of the types of minimum contacts questioned, such as whether the defendant purposefully availed himself. “Purposeful availment” indicates that the defendant must know or reasonably anticipate that his activities could give rise to the cause of action in the forum (as was discussed in the World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson case). In addition, another minimum contact that was found to be questionable in these three cases was whether the defendant had “systematic and continuous activity in the state” (more specifically discussed in the Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe Corp. v. State of Washington cases). In addition, these cases have highlighted the importance of determining general (cause of actions outside the state) and specific jurisdiction (cause arising from activity within the state) in the court’s decision making process. So that in future cases, even if the cause of action did not occur within the state, as seen in the three cases discussed, it is still possible that the court can find sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction, if there are enough minimum contacts to issue the court’s jurisdiction over persons or property within the state. Additionally, the Pennoyer v. Neff case ensured that in future cases there should be adequate notice, notifying the defendant of a pending lawsuit, by any traditional methods of personal service due process.
All of these cases involved some evolution of placing restrictions on the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. However at the same time attempted to uphold the sovereignty of the state, minimizing the state’s jurisdiction over non-residents, and maintaining protection of the within state residents. The claims made in these cases questioned the state court’s exercise of in personum jurisdiction over non-residents of the state, thus limiting the state’s jurisdiction imposed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, to protect individuals against inconvenient litigation.
However, as society has evolved so has the law and the interpretation of law and what the due process clause of the constitution protects. In addition increase in the speed of communication, commerce, and transportation have made it less of burden on a defendant to respond to a suit in a another state, if he is able to engage in economic activity within a state other than the one he lives in. Which justifies the reasoning behind what the 14th Amendment does not protect a defendant from, such as, the inconvenience of travel, which not count as a significant burden on the defendant. Instead, by today’s standards due process can more accurately be justified and determined by the mobility of the defendant’s defense. In addition, fairness is not measured or required by the constitution in terms of holding the trial in a State that the defendants has the best contacts with, rather the defendant only needs to meet the minimum contact standards to be held liable for suit in that state.
Pennoyer v. Neff, International Shoe Corp. v. State of Washington, and World-Wide Volkwagon v. Woodson are cases that are all interrelated in terms of defining and structuring a State’s personal jurisdiction over persons and property within its territory. However as society has evolved so has the relevancy of prior rulings on future cases. These three cases illustrate a pattern of decreasing the State’s personal jurisdiction and upholding an individuals rights and protecting them from suit in state’s that they consider themselves non-residents of. For example, in World-Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson, there is already a trend toward re-establishing the State’s jurisdiction and the power of congress to regulate commerce between states. Therefore what may have protected the defendant in the Pennoyer v. Neff case, may longer be sufficient to protect individuals from suits as a non-resident conducting business or owning property within the state. Thus cases such as Pennoyer v. Neff that focused exclusively on the rights of the defendant, may be less relevant to today’s society, especially when applied to future cases. In addition the “model of society on which the International Shoe court based its opinion is no longer accurate” as a result of the time that has elapsed since then. In the past these cases have focused more on the individual’s rights, however as society has changed and the speed of commerce between states has evolved, it becomes increasingly necessary for the state’s to not only maintain their sovereignty, but change their focus in terms of how they make their judgments. The trend now illustrates a shift from state’s basing their decisions solely on past judgments (which have shown to be increasingly irrelevant overtime), and instead focus on how the decisions they make at the present will be predictive of future outcomes that will influence and affect the state and the individuals within its territory.
