Personal jurisdiction, is about legal authority to impose judicial and penal actions on a person. So how does that work with France? I assume states are different than other countries. That means cases against people in nations are will always be tried in federal court? Or some negotiation between what the nations have set up for conflict resolution?
It just means the power to make the person appear in court or to enter a judgment against that person. For example, let's say you live in Florida and one day somebody sues you in Alaska. You've never been to Alaska, never had any connection with someone from Alaska, done nothing that even affects Alaska, you probably can't be sued in a civil action in Alaska. Alaska lacks personal jurisdiction over you. But let's say you drive to Alaska, cause a car accident, and drive back out of state. Now you can probably be sued in Alaska and even if you don't show up, a court in Alaska may be able to enter a judgment against you. Does that help?
You've explained nothing of the requirements necessary for the New York court to be able to assert "Long arm Jurisdiction" over the Defendant. Good video though.
Because this is just a brief and the requirement for each court or state could be different? These videos are for basic law purposes, and not something in detailed.
Shunterrence Trammell Good to hear, thanks. Let me know if there are other topics that interest you. Best of success in your classes. uslawessentials.com/blog uslawessentials.com/forum
I wasn't aware of the long arm jurisdiction clause. There was a Commercial Fraud complaint that I was the victim of . I live in New Jersey, and the Defendant was a resident of Pennsylvania at the time. He was also a defendant in a similar home repair scam in PA and arrested and jailed in PA. I went to to my local Municipal Court and filed a complaint, but was under the impression that if the defendant could not be found, or that he could not be compelled to appear in NJ that it was a lost cause. Looks like I need to regroup and locate this fellow and go back and pursue my original complaint. Would Long Arm apply to a Criminal Charge ?
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson The Court stated that although it was foreseeable that 1 of their cars could be involved in an accident in Oklahoma, foreseeability alone is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.
I am struggling with the concept in rem / in personam jurisdiction - do you mind explaining it? Or do you know of some resources that can help clarify it?
Sure. Briefly, in rem jurisdiction gives a court power to decide a case based on its power over certain property, even if the parties who might claim ownership over the property are not actually within that court's jurisdiction. By way of example, let's say there is property within the made-up state of West Carolina. West Carolina is trying to determine who is the owner of the property. Because the property is located within West Carolina, a West Carolina Court could probably decide who the owner of the property is, even if the parties who might claim ownership of the property have no other contacts with the state. Usually, defendants must have sufficient contacts with the state for the state to assert personal jurisdiction over them. However, because the court is just deciding the disposition of property, it does not matter that the affected parties do not have any other contacts with the state. Keep in mind that rules for in rem jurisdiction can vary from state to state.
ScoutOut Yes, the idea is that a court in one state has power over a person who resides outside of that state's borders. As a practical matter a person represented by a lawyer is not going to have to personally appear for every court conference etc. Hope this answers your question, let me know.
Usually not a terribly difficult question. I'll provide two simple examples and then a third example, which is a bit more complicated but an actual case. First, let's say Mary lives in New York. Mary and John enter into a contract and Johns sues Mary in New York, A New York court will be able to assert personal jurisdiction over Mary based on her residence. If Mary argues that she is not a resident of New York, it is not difficult to prove that she lives in NY. Second, let's say John sues Mary in Pennsylvania as a result of a car accident Mary allegedly caused in Pennsylvania. Although Mary is not a resident of PA, the car accident will be sufficient for Pennsylvania to assert personal jurisdiction over Mary. Finally, real life example, more complex but involves a business entity as opposed to a natural person: www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-368 Short video introduction here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X6txRnbFmMk.html
ILC, I answered your question on my blog. Please let me know whether this helps: uslawessentials.com/what-is-the-difference-between-long-arm-jurisdiction-and-specific-jurisdiction/
Federal courts follow state court rules on long arm jurisdiction. (F.R.Civ. P. 4) For example, a federal court in NY will follow NY state's long arm statute. Federal courts often deal with this issue because they frequently have cases in which the defendant is from another state or another country.
the law is if you stay in one state and you are trying to sue a person who lives in another state outside that state boarder then then the person suing has to get long arms jurisdiction in order to file charges against that person
Felicia Carrington Hi Felicia, Yes, but just to be clear, when people say "filing charges" they are usually referring to criminal cases. This video is about civil cases. The idea is that the plaintiff is a "citizen" of State A (he resides in State A) and he wants to sue a defendant who is a citizen of State B (the defendant resides in State B). If the plaintiff wants to sue the defendant in State A, the State A court will need to assert "long arm jurisdiction" over the defendant because the defendant is a citizen of a different state. Make sense?
+USLawEssentials it makes sense to me. The only question that i have on this is, Its not all state court or federal court that have "long arm jusrisdiction"?
I'm not sure I exactly understand your questions. Both state courts and federal courts would need to have long arm jurisdiction over someone who is a citizen of another state. For example, we'll say David lives in New Jersey and drives into Patty's car. And let's say Patty sues David in New York. Whether Patty sues David in a state or federal court in NY, the court would need to have long arm jurisdiction over David.
