Sunday, September 19, 2010
Confusion over Personal Jurisdiction
I have a question about "personal jurisdiction" and was wondering if anyone could help me with my confusion. In class we referred to personal jurisdiction as a question as to which state has jurisdiction over the defendant. In the textbook, "in personam jurisdiction" is defined as "the power of a court to require a party or a witness to come before the court; the court must have personal jurisdiction to enforce its judgments or orders against a party; in personam jurisdiction extends only to the state's borders in the state court system and across the court's geographic district in the federal system." I'm not sure how our in-class definition meets the full criteria of the definition of in personam jurisdiction. Does anyone know of any examples of in personam jurisdiction NOT referring to a state's jurisdiction over a defendant? Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personal Jurisdiction = in personam jurisdiction. Personal Jurisdiction is required for a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. Ask the question: Whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the state? Without personal jurisdiction the court has no power to make a binding decision. Ultimately, personal jurisdiction is a question as to which state(s) have jurisdiction over a particular defendant. Please raise this any any other questions in class!
ReplyDelete