Download Asahi v. Superior Court Case Analysis: Minimum Contacts and In Rem Jurisdiction and more Slides Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! Asahi v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) • Another “stream of commerce” case • What is the issue that the Supreme Court must decide in Asahi? Docsity.com Asahi- A Badly Divided Court: Count the Votes Docsity.com Asahi on Minimum Contacts • Is some “additional” conduct required other than placing goods in the stream of commerce and being that the goods will end up in the forum state (such as advertising, marketing) • O’Connor – yes (says World-Wide court held mere foreseeability not enough) • Brennan – no (says World-Wide court carefully limited its holding to situation where consumer took goods to state) Docsity.com A BIT OF HISTORY • Remember that the Pennoyer case established a strict, formalistic rule of physical presence within the forum before the forum could exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. • If the defendant was non-resident, there was personal jurisdiction over him if he could be personally served in the state (or, as an exception, if he consented) • In rem jurisdiction: another choice Docsity.com IN REM JURISDICTION • What is in rem jurisdiction? Docsity.com IN REM ACTIONS ARE BROUGHT AGAINST PROPERTY • Where action requires the court in the forum state to determine the status of, interests in, or title to property itself. • If the property has been attached and thus subjected to the control of the forum, due process doesn’t obligate the court to identify and notify everyone whose interest might be affected by its judgment. • In rem judgments are effective against all the world Docsity.com SOME EXAMPLES • Probate proceedings • eminent domain • confiscation of property • registration of title to property • ownership of corporate shares • declare bankruptcy Docsity.com QUASI IN REM ACTIONS • What’s a quasi in rem action? Docsity.com Relation of Property to Claim • In Pennoyer the Court did not require that the property that was seized was related to the P’s claim. • However, the P could not recover more than the value of the property in an action where there was in rem jurisdiction against the Defendant. Docsity.com DEFENDANT: SOPHIE’S CHOICE? • Once property has been attached as a jurisdictional vehicle,D must choose between • 1. General appearance • 2. Default judgment and sacrifice of property Docsity.com PLAINTIFF: ADVANTAGES • Puts D to the “Sophie’s choice” described above. • The seized property is security for the judgment Docsity.com
