Here are some things to think of concerning the theory of personal jurisdiction in Pennoyer before we move on to Int'l Shoe.

1) Mitchell brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees. The personal jurisdictional basis for the suit is $200 property in Oregon owned by Neff. The Oregon state court attaches the property at the beginning of the suit. Neff appears, but solely to litigate liability up to the value of the property attached. Under the Pennoyer theory, may the Oregon court constitutionally take Neff's presence (including through his lawyer) to be consent to in personam jurisdiction to litigate the entire amount?

2) Mitchell brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees. The personal jurisdictional basis for the suit is $200 property in Oregon owned by Neff. The Oregon state court attaches the property at the beginning of the suit. Neff makes a limited appearance, but loses on the merits. The property is sold and the money given to Mitchell. Mitchell then brings a suit in California state court to recover the remaining $53.14. Service on Neff is in-hand on California. Mitchell asks the California court execute the Oregon judgment by attaching $53.14 from Neff's bank account in California and giving it to Mitchell. What result?

3) Same as 2, except that Mitchell's second suit in California is not to execute the Oregon judgment, but to decide liability for the remaining $53.14. Is Mitchell claim precluded?

4) Same as 2, except that Mitchell's second suit in California is not to execute the Oregon judgment, but to decide liability for the remaining $53.14. Is Neff precluded from relitigating issues that were decided in the earlier suit, for example, that there was a valid contract between Mitchell and Neff, that Mitchell performed legal services, and that the value of the services was at least $200?

5)  Mitchell lures Neff to Oregon with a story that Neff has won a contest. While he is in Oregon, Neff is served for a suit brought by Mitchell in Oregon state court concerning unpaid lawyer’s fees. Neff chooses to default. Under Oregon law, someone can be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state even when the tagging is the result of fraudulent inducement. Mitchell then brings a suit in California state court to execute the Oregon judgment. Under California law someone cannot be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state when the tagging is the result of fraudulent inducement. Neff argues that the earlier Oregon judgment is void. What result?

6) Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court. Neff has no connection to the state but does not want to default. He appears solely for the purpose of challenging personal jurisdiction. May the Oregon court nevertheless take Neff's presence (including through his lawyer) to be consent to in personam jurisdiction?

7) Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court. Neff has no connection to the state but does not want to default. He appears for the purpose of challenging personal jurisdiction but also adds the defense of failure to state a claim. What result?

8) Let's say that Neff lives in Oregon, but is in California on a business trip. Mitchell has Neff served personally in California for a suit in Oregon state court. Is there personal jurisdiction over Neff under the Pennoyer theory?

9) Mitchell has Neff tagged in Oregon while he is there for a business trip. Mitchell's suit is in Oregon state court and concerns unpaid lawyers fees. Neff appears to litigate the merits. While Neff is there Pennoyer has him served in connection with another unrelated suit, brought in Oregon state court, concerning a brawl in California. Neff chooses to default on the second suit. Under Oregon law, someone can be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state even when in the state for litigation. Pennoyer then brings a suit in California state court to execute the Oregon judgment. Under California law someone is immune from service (in other words, cannot be submitted to personal jurisdiction) while in the state for litigation activities. Neff argues that the earlier Oregon judgment is void. What result?