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.
In rem jurisdiction ("power about or against 'the thing ' " [1]) is the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal ...
In personam is a Latin phrase meaning "against a particular person". In a lawsuit in which the case is against a specific individual, that person must be served with a summons and complaint (in England & Wales known as Particulars of Claim (CPR 1999)) to give the court jurisdiction to try the case, and the judgment applies to that person and is called an "in personam judgment".
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a state court can only exert personal jurisdiction over a party domiciled out-of-state if that party is served with process while physically present within the state.
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.
Although these claims are filed during in personam actions, they are in rem in nature, as the Court is attaching property to the suit. This has been described as a "remedy quasi in rem." [2] The Rule B procedure is in addition to the in rem procedure for arresting vessels that is available under Rule C. [3]
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".
Used in the title of a decision or comment to identify the matter they are related to; usually used for a case where the proceeding is in rem or quasi in rem and not in personam (e.g. probate or bankrupt estate, guardianship, application for laying out a public highway) and occasionally for an ex parte proceeding (e.g. application for a writ of ...