Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A quasi in rem legal action (Latin, "as if against a thing") is a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction.In the American legal system the state can assert power over an individual simply based on the fact that this individual has property (bank account, debt, share of stock, land) in the state.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Neff, holding that for the trial court to have jurisdiction over the property, the property needed to be attached before the start of litigation, whereupon the trial court has quasi in rem jurisdiction. Mitchell had made the mistake of not attaching the parcel at the start of his action against Neff, instead ...
A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation. Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown. Courts fell into the practice of styling a case not as "John Doe ...
Extension of quasi in rem jurisdiction led to extreme results that threatened the justification for the jurisdiction. Bearing in mind that territorial jurisdiction existed in a pre-industrial society where transportation across the country was difficult, long, and potentially treacherous, and consider the hypothetical wherein Alice owes Bob ...
In rem jurisdiction affects the interests of all persons in a thing. In rem jurisdiction may be exercised in a limited class of cases, when the court has control over the thing itself, like with a suit to quiet title to land in Florida. Quasi in rem jurisdiction affects the interest of specified persons in a thing. The court must have physical ...
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.
President Biden took a departing jab at Trump, saying that what the president-elect did was a "genuine threat to democracy.". Ahead of the anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol ...
Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case that exemplified the idiosyncratic types of jurisdiction state courts (and therefore plaintiffs) could assert through quasi in rem actions before International Shoe's (1945) [1] "minimum contacts" test replaced Pennoyer's (1878) [2] principles of "power and notice".