Loading…

Pennoyer Was Right

Pennoyer v. Neff has a bad rap. As an original matter, Pennoyer is legally correct. Compared to current doctrine, it offers a more coherent and attractive way to think about personal jurisdiction and interstate relations generally.To wit: The Constitution imposes no direct limits on personal jurisdi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Texas law review 2017-05, Vol.95 (6)
Main Author: Sachs, Stephen E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Pennoyer v. Neff has a bad rap. As an original matter, Pennoyer is legally correct. Compared to current doctrine, it offers a more coherent and attractive way to think about personal jurisdiction and interstate relations generally.To wit: The Constitution imposes no direct limits on personal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction isn't a matter of federal law, but of general law-that unwritten law, including much of the English common law and the customary law of nations, that formed the basis of the American legal system. As Pennoyer saw, the Fourteenth Amendment changed things by enabling direct federal review of state judgments, rather than making parties wait to challenge them at the recognition stage. This Article addresses the "central mystery"1 of Pennoyer v. Neff: what does due process have to do with jurisdiction?3
ISSN:0040-4411
1942-857X