1.2 – Personal Jurisdiction – Pennoyer and Burnham
Assessment Questions
Question 1
Which of the following is not one of the traditional bases for personal jurisdiction set out in Pennoyer v. Neff?
a
Defendant’s citizenship in the forum state
b
Plaintiff’s citizenship in the forum state
c
Defendant’s presence in the forum state when he’s served with process
d
Defendant’s implied or express consent
Personal jurisdiction is about whether the court can hear claims against a certain defendant—not whether it can hear claims brought by a certain plaintiff. Pennoyer recognized three ways to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant: consent, citizenship in the forum, and physical presence when process is served.
Question 2
Daniel is a resident of East Kansas. Pete wanted to sue Daniel in West Nebraska, so he invited Daniel to meet him for dinner at a restaurant just over the West Nebraska line. When Daniel arrived, Pete’s friend served Daniel with process. Does a West Nebraska court have personal jurisdiction over Daniel?
a
Yes, it has “tag” jurisdiction
b
Yes, because Daniel intentionally traveled to West Nebraska
c
No, because Pete tricked Daniel
d
No, because being present in a state when you’re served with process isn’t enough to establish personal jurisdiction
Jurisdiction that’s based on a defendant’s transient presence in a state is often referred to as “tag” jurisdiction. The classic case is Burnham, in which a wife established tag jurisdiction over her husband by having him served with process in California while he was visiting their children. The one carve-out from tag jurisdiction is that you can’t entice the defendant to enter the state by trick or fraud just for the purpose of serving him. That’s what Pete did here, and that’s why C is the right answer.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.