Study Questions on Pennoyer and Closson

Some things to keep in mind when reading these cases:

1) Pennoyer is intended to introduce the traditional bases for personal jurisdiction by states. Although, as subsequent cases will show, personal jurisdiction has expanded beyond what was allowed in Pennoyer, the case is still important, because the categorization of personal jurisdiction into in personam, in rem and quasi in rem is still used. In addition, the transformations brought about by subsequent cases can't be understood unless you know what was being transformed. Finally, there may be some cases of PJ (e.g. PJ through simple tagging in the forum state) that can be justified only by Pennoyer.

2) Keep in mind that two actions are at issue in Pennoyer, one in Oregon state court and one in federal court in Oregon. Identify the parties and causes of action in each. Determine what happened procedurally in each.
For example, what was the source of personal jurisdiction for the action in federal court? What was the source of subject matter jurisdiction? What was the method of service? What was the cause of action?
Try to answer the same questions for the earlier action in Oregon state court.

3) What is a collateral attack on a judgment?

4) What if Neff had found out about Mitchell's suit against him, appeared, and lost on the issue of personal jursidiction? Could Neff subsequently collaterally attack the judgment?

5) Why did Judge Deady decide in Neff's favor? Did his argument makes sense?

6) On the basis of what law did Deady conclude that the judgment against Neff was invalid?

7) Justice Field rejects Deady’s argument that the affidavits submitted by Mitchell were inadequate. Are Field’s arguments persuasive?

8) Justice Field finds that there was no jurisdiction over Neff or over Neff's property. Why?

9) In coming to this conclusion, what is the source of the law that Justice Field is articulating? Oregon law? The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Natural law? International law? When answering this question, consider whether Field thinks that the law he is articulating was binding on the Oregon court in the case of Mitchell v. Neff or whether it is simply binding upon a federal court when making a decision about whether it should recognize an Oregon judgment, that is, in the case of Pennoyer v. Neff. This is a very important distinction.

10) Let's say that rather than bringing his action against Pennoyer in federal court, Neff had brought it in Oregon State Court. How would the case have turned out?

11) Same as 10, but assume as well that the case of Mitchell v. Neff had been brought after 1868 rather than in 1865. How would the case of Neff v. Pennoyer have turned out then??

12) Field concluded that there was no personal jurisdiction in the case of Mitchell v. Neff because of a problem with the time that the property was attached. Why does Field think this issue is important? Is his argument really concerned with issues of personal jurisdiction or with something else?

13) Closson upholds a statute that is apparently incompatible with what was said in Pennoyer. What is this apparent incompatibility and how can the two cases be reconciled?

14) Consider the following cases:

a) Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon. Service of the summons and complaint are delivered to Neff in hand in California. PJ?

b) Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred in  Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon. There is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip. PJ?

c) Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred to Mitchell in California – Neff was never an Oregon resident. There is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip. PJ?

15) How is it that Mitchell's suit against Neff could ever have in rem jurisdiction, since the suit was about Neff's personal obligations to Michell for lawyer's services and not about property? Doesn't an in rem proceeding have to be about property? 

16) Does an in rem case always have to have publication as its form of service? Does an in personam case always have to have in hand service?

17) Consider the following cases. Is there personal jurisdiction according to the Pennoyer regime? If there is, is it in rem or in personam?

a) Pennoyer and Neff both reside in Oregon. Neff sues Pennoyer in order to get him to remove trash from property in California that Pennoyer left there. Service is in hand on Pennoyer in Oregon.

b) Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court in order to quiet Pennoyer's title to Oregon property that each claims he owns. Service on Neff is in-hand in California.

c) Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, brings a suit to quiet title to Oregon property that he claims he owns. He brings an action in Oregon state court that he hopes will bind everyone in the world, in the sense that after there is a decision in his favor, everyone will be claim precluded from bringing a new suit claiming ownership of the property. Service is by publication.

d) Same as c, except the action is brought in California state court.

e) Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court in order to compel Neff to abide by their contract of sale and turn over to Pennoyer property in California. Service is in hand on Neff in Oregon.

f) Mitchell brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees. Neff resides in California. The Oregon state court attaches property owned by Neff worth $300 at the beginning of the suit.