Talk:Personal jurisdiction

message: In the United States, there are at least four ways that a court can obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case.  Service of a summons and complaint is one way.  The voluntary submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court is a second way.  The participation of the defendant in the proceedings of the court, even without the specific intent to submit to the jurisdiction of the court is a third way. That can be a trap for the unwary. The fourth way is service of notice by publication after attempts at personal service have failed.  This section, as written, is incomplete and misleading. Kmorford 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat accurate.  Personal jurisdiction is slightly different in each state, however I would not support categorizing methods of obtaining personal jurisdiction by the different methods of notice.  Service by publication and personal service are merely two methods of service, which are a form of notice.  Other methods can be used as well: waiver is essentially required of U.S. defendants in Federal Court under FRCP 4(d), for example, and service upon international defendants (under FRCP 4(f)) must comport with various treaties (notably the Hague Treaty) or, in the absence of a treaty via letters of request (AKA letters rogatory).  I hope that the section I recently added re: power, consent, and notice (as well as the rest of my significant re-write) satisfactorily addresses the topic.  Please provide your feedback, if you would!  Manumitany (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree this section needs work 

message: Shouldn't venue be included in the list of required items for a court to have any power other than to dismiss a case?  Speaking of which, it should probably be spelled out more clearly that a court can dismiss a case (and must) without these things... Really, it seems like they're starting a list of the Rule 12(b) motions which is overkill.  Twinotter 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venue? 

message: "Had the plaintiffs sued in U.S. federal court sited in Oklahoma, venue would have been proper under 28 USC § 1391, the general federal venue statute, because Oklahoma was a state in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. However, the United States Supreme Court found that the defendants (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.) did not have the minimum contacts with Oklahoma necessary to create personal jurisdiction there. [World-Wide Volkswagen was one of the "defendants"; the case cited is WWV Corp (original defendant) v. Woodson (the Oklahoma state judge)"
Italic textIN ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURT, DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WOULD HAVE TO EXIST, WHICH IT DOES NOT IN THIS CASE. (IN ORDER TO HAVE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, NO TWO PARTIES CAN BE FROM THE SAME STATE). PLAINTIFF PURPOSEFULLY NAMED TWO DEFENDANTS LOCATED IN NEW YORK SO THAT THE CASE COULD BE HEARD IN FRONT OF A MORE SYMPATHETIC JURY.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.225.158 (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Venue?

message: I am not entirely familiar with personal jurisdiction in non-American forums.  I believe that the fundamentals of personal jurisdiction are Common Law in nature, but I've titled the section to refer to the U.S.  As this article is almost, if not entirely US-centric, I would recommend that it be renamed to Personal Jurisdiction (U.S.) or similar once we can establish a substantive nation-neutral page that it can be linked to from.Manumitany (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Application 

message: Where a defendant challenges jurisdiction, courts may still exercise personal jurisdiction when they have independent power to do so.
I dont agree with this line the way its written. Will some editor please cite this. The sentence taken literally is correct. But your supposing that the defendant is wrongly disputing jurisdiction. If the court has jurisdiction, and the defendant challenges it, that does not take away the jurisdiction of the court. It only allows the defendant to appeal. If the court did not have jurisdiction and the defendant disputes it, the order of the court would be void ab initio (ie. void at the outset), in other words, it would not be worth the paper its printed on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 08:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc issues