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:
Collateral
Constitutional law
Due process of law
Federal court decisions
International law
International relations
Jurisdiction
Licensing examinations
Situs
State court decisions
State courts
Supreme Court decisions
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 6
container_start_page
container_title Texas law review
container_volume 95
creator Sachs, Stephen E
description 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
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1916146188</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1916146188</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-3e9a9f202eceb66220c6f6d67425a794f3dcef2c8c3447d01a0cbc5b326aaed73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotzctKAzEUgOEgLTi9bHyCQteBc5KT21JKL0JBEUV3JZM5qRaZqZPpwre3oKt_9_03osJASnrj3keiAiCQRIi3YlLKCQCMC6YSd0_ctt0P94u3WBbPn8ePYSbGOX4Vnv93Kl4365fVTu4ftw-r-708o9eD1BxiyAoUJ66tVQqSzbaxjpSJLlDWTeKskk-ayDWAEVKdTK2VjZEbp6di-eee--77wmU4nLpL316XBwxokSx6r38Bc4M1kg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1916146188</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pennoyer Was Right</title><source>Nexis UK</source><source>Business Source Ultimate【Trial: -2024/12/31】【Remote access available】</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</source><creator>Sachs, Stephen E</creator><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E</creatorcontrib><description>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</description><identifier>ISSN: 0040-4411</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-857X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Austin: University of Texas, Austin, School of Law Publications, Inc</publisher><subject>Collateral ; Constitutional law ; Due process of law ; Federal court decisions ; International law ; International relations ; Jurisdiction ; Licensing examinations ; Situs ; State court decisions ; State courts ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Texas law review, 2017-05, Vol.95 (6)</ispartof><rights>Copyright University of Texas, Austin, School of Law Publications, Inc. 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1916146188?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,36060,44363</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E</creatorcontrib><title>Pennoyer Was Right</title><title>Texas law review</title><description>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</description><subject>Collateral</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Due process of law</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>International law</subject><subject>International relations</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Licensing examinations</subject><subject>Situs</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State courts</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>0040-4411</issn><issn>1942-857X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNotzctKAzEUgOEgLTi9bHyCQteBc5KT21JKL0JBEUV3JZM5qRaZqZPpwre3oKt_9_03osJASnrj3keiAiCQRIi3YlLKCQCMC6YSd0_ctt0P94u3WBbPn8ePYSbGOX4Vnv93Kl4365fVTu4ftw-r-708o9eD1BxiyAoUJ66tVQqSzbaxjpSJLlDWTeKskk-ayDWAEVKdTK2VjZEbp6di-eee--77wmU4nLpL316XBwxokSx6r38Bc4M1kg</recordid><startdate>20170501</startdate><enddate>20170501</enddate><creator>Sachs, Stephen E</creator><general>University of Texas, Austin, School of Law Publications, Inc</general><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170501</creationdate><title>Pennoyer Was Right</title><author>Sachs, Stephen E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-3e9a9f202eceb66220c6f6d67425a794f3dcef2c8c3447d01a0cbc5b326aaed73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Collateral</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Due process of law</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>International law</topic><topic>International relations</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Licensing examinations</topic><topic>Situs</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State courts</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E</creatorcontrib><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ProQuest_ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Texas law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sachs, Stephen E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pennoyer Was Right</atitle><jtitle>Texas law review</jtitle><date>2017-05-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>6</issue><issn>0040-4411</issn><eissn>1942-857X</eissn><abstract>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</abstract><cop>Austin</cop><pub>University of Texas, Austin, School of Law Publications, Inc</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0040-4411
ispartof Texas law review, 2017-05, Vol.95 (6)
issn 0040-4411
1942-857X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1916146188
source Nexis UK; Business Source Ultimate【Trial: -2024/12/31】【Remote access available】; ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)
subjects Collateral
Constitutional law
Due process of law
Federal court decisions
International law
International relations
Jurisdiction
Licensing examinations
Situs
State court decisions
State courts
Supreme Court decisions
title Pennoyer Was Right
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T14%3A43%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pennoyer%20Was%20Right&rft.jtitle=Texas%20law%20review&rft.au=Sachs,%20Stephen%20E&rft.date=2017-05-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=6&rft.issn=0040-4411&rft.eissn=1942-857X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1916146188%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-3e9a9f202eceb66220c6f6d67425a794f3dcef2c8c3447d01a0cbc5b326aaed73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1916146188&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true