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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Texas law review 2017-05, Vol.95 (6) |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
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 |