Talk:Pennoyer v. Neff

message: The holding in the infobox says "personal jurisdiction must comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." This is false, because the holding was made before 14th amendment was ratified.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captchacatcher (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holding in infobox 

message: Neff purchased the land in Oregon after the default judgment against him in the state court. (Yeazell, Civil Procedure, Aspen Publishers, New York (2004).)
::The above line had the title of the book link to the topic. That's incorrect. I removed the link and converted the title name to italics. DavidForthoffer (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of Neff's purchase of land 

message: This is where comments are made, not in the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. (Whoever wrote that is wrong. Pennoyer v. Neff has never been overruled by the Supreme Court. In fact, in Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604, the Court specifically reaffirmed one of Pennoyer's key holdings--that personal service within the jurisdiction (i.e. Presence) is adequate to establish in personam jurisdiction. See below.)<---Whoever said that it was never overruled is not entirely correct.
The above was moved from the article. Whatever the outcome, it needs to be cited. For what its worth, if you KeyCite (or Shepardize) Pennoyer it lists Int'l Shoe as overruling Pennoyer in part. But I'm too lazy to pull out my textbook for a proper rendering of this issue with citations. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon edits 

message: I think there should be a cite here. I guess that's all I really wanted to say.FastBike (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part? Your edit summary talks about the entire paragraph, but there is one citation in the paragraph, so which part of the paragraph are you looking for a citation? As to your edit summary, I do think a mention that this case is an important part of law school is warranted. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place in law schools 

message: The subsequent history section of this article seems a little disjointed and has no citations. I like the idea of looking at where Pennoyer still holds up and where it's been replaced, but what's there now is fairly confusing and unsourced. I removed one statement that was plainly wrong. Thoughts on rewriting that section to be clearer with better citations? De Minimis Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsequent History rewrite? 

message: The article currently says, "waited until July 1866 to levy execution on the property at which time the court ordered the land seized and sold in order to pay the judgment. Mitchell arranged for the sheriff to seize the land, purchased it at public auction." For one thing, that didn't come from the court opinion. And I don't think that's how the process ordinarily works. I think that the court would normally issue a "writ of execution," the plaintiff takes that writ to a county sheriff who "seizes" the property by arranging a public auction and causing the county recorder to convey title to the auction winner. Even if I'm wrong, the article should cite a source justifying its statement. I'm changing that portion of the article to something based on what the opinion actually says: "The defendant claims to have acquired the premises under a sheriff's deed, made upon a sale of the property on execution issued upon a judgment recovered against the plaintiff in one of the circuit courts of the State." DavidForthoffer (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court ordered the land seized??? 

message: "Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of such judgments may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law" Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714,733 24 L. Ed. 565, 24 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1878). The case is about service of notice, but that question is framed in general jurisdictional terms. 172.58.56.97 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporation of right to collaterally attack void orders into fourteenth amendment?