Hess V. Pawloski Case Summary

Christian E. Foster
Civil Procedure
Section 1 Chapter 2 Summary In order for the judicial system to operate, the court must have the ability to exercise its power over citizens within the confines of law. To do this, a court exerts jurisdiction over individuals, allowing it to enter binding judgements in suits that arise due to contact in the jurisdiction. There are three types of jurisdiction exercised by state courts: In Personam, In Rem, and Quasi In Rem. In Personam jurisdiction is jurisdiction gained by the consent of the parties, both actually and/or constructively. This can happen by consent, presence, or citizenship. When jurisdiction is gained by consent, the party has come to the jurisdiction and consented, or given agreement,
to be sued there. When jurisdiction is gained by citizenship the party is a citizen of the foreign state. It is fact, that a state will always have jurisdiction over the citizens thereof. When jurisdiction is gained by presence, the defendant is at that time, present in the state and once served, is subject to the mercy of the court. Courts have held, that anyone traveling to a state should have the expectation of being sued there. Personal jurisdiction can also be gained "In Rem".
Suits involving this type of jurisdiction are actions over property and land, not persons. It is an action over the property or land itself which lies within the states limits. Alternatively, Quasi in rem jurisdiction can be exercised in a suit over the value of an individual's property. In order to exercise this jurisdiction, the plaintiff must have seized and attached the property. In an effort to expand jurisdiction, the court instituted the minimum contacts test. This test was expanded by Hess v. Pawloski, when a Massachusetts court determined that due his activities within the state, a nonresident of Massachusetts was still subject to the court’s jurisdiction, regarding a suit for a traffic accident. The court held that use of a state's highways, was essentially consent to be sued within that state. Courts have also determined that they will have jurisdiction over a party when they make a general appearance in the state, but not when the defendant is only appearing to contest jurisdiction. Under the minimum contacts test, the court may exercise jurisdiction either specifically or generally. Specific jurisdiction takes place when an isolated act has occurred, giving jurisdiction over that act only. However, if the defendant has many contacts and activities within the state, he can be sued over any and all
matters. After Hess v. Pawloski, the court turned to that minimum contacts test, through International Shoe. The court held that if a company has businessmen in a state, the minimum contacts will qualify jurisdiction. The corporation must also have what is known as "systematic and continuous" activity within the state. The suit must arise out of that activity within the state. To determine the substantiality of these contacts, courts look at the benefits to employees of being in the state, the state’s interest, the relatedness of the activities to the suit being filed, the extent of the business being done in the state, and convenience. Later, the courts developed Long Arm Statues, in essence giving it the ability to reach out and touch individuals in other states due to their activities within that state by affection, to the extent granted by the fourteenth amendment. This occurs through a two element test: Purposeful availment and Reasonableness. Purposeful availment deals with activities of defendants. Such is the case in Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz, where the court held that although the Burger Kings involved in the suit were located in Michigan, their principle office being in Miami, Fl. granted enough availment for the Florida court to have jurisdiction. The court determined that if a defendant enjoys the benefits of the laws of the state, the individual is quite possibly subject to availment. In determining personal availment, the court will look at the extent of the defendants commercial activities that have affected the state or its citizen(s). The court will also consider those benefits of law, if any other business is affected, foreseeability and whether or not the defendant can expect to be sued in that state. The second element to long arm statues is reasonableness. In determining reasonableness, courts look at several variables. They first determined if the exertion of that jurisdiction is reasonable and if the plaintiff's interest is proper. They then consider the burden upon the defendant, the states interest in settling the dispute, the propensity to achieve efficient resolutions, the shared interest of multiple states and fairness. It must be noted that, contrary to popular belief, federal courts do not have "'nationwide jurisdiction" over all matters. They may, however, through long arm statues, exercise personal jurisdiction in a state where a statue has been adopted and a federal court is located. If a state's long arm statue doesn't allow the court to touch a defendant, the federal court may allow reach. This jurisdiction may be challenged in state courts by varying means. Some states allow a general appearance to serve as a waiver. But usually, when a defendant makes a general appearance and challenges the merits of a case, it usually does not constitutes a waiver. As is the same when a defendant makes a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction. Jurisdiction may also be challenged in federal court. Although there is no general and special appearance differentiation, a defendant can challenge jurisdiction at the same time he challenges the merits. If a defendant loses in a suit, he must object to jurisdiction at once, as the decision will be binding upon all parties The constitution further requires, that in order to "get a defendant to court", notice must manifest.
This requirement assures that the defendant is properly made aware of the pending lawsuit. In order for notice to have sufficed, there must have been reasonable efforts to make the defendant aware. These efforts must be reasonably decided and must have been a reasonable likelihood of notice actually being conveyed. This was the case of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, as the court determined that in notifying other bank beneficiaries, the "means employed" must be comparable to that of someone who actually wants to inform the other
party. In consideration of publication, persons with known whereabouts, can have notice by first class mail. Those with addresses unknown can be achieved through through publication. In the issue of real estate, publication may be sufficient. Often times a defendant may claim inadequacy or non-occurrence of notice. If a defendant indeed does not receive notice, he can object and any preceding judgement will not be binding. In Mullane, the court determined that "mails today" are considered efficient and inexpensive as a means of default communication. Therefore, by default, notice should be given by first class mail. If all all reasonable means have been employed and the defendant is still not aware, the judgement is still binding. The law institutes these systems to ensure that all citizens have the protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that operates in fundamental fairness, promoting justice and liberty.