Free Newsletter
Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction Due Process
cassiejohnson//December 18, 2015//
Appellants challenged an enforcement judgment that added respondents as judgment debtors, arguing that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. Respondent did not bring appellants into the action as parties and did not serve them with notice of its motion or the hearing date. The District Court determined that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent because the post-judgment motion was a proceeding in rem. The Court of Appeals held that exercising quasi in rem jurisdiction over property that had been fraudulently transferred does not withstand due-process scrutiny. Vacated.
A14-1916 Schwie v. Armco Unlimited, Inc. (Hennepin County)
Top News
- Who is liable when AI goes rogue? Lawyers see new risks
- Trump says he’ll bring ballroom fight to Supreme Court after lower court halts work
- Trump tries new tack against birthright citizenship after Supreme Court snub
- Justices void contractor’s lien, deny legal fees in construction suit
- Judicial Branch announces death of OLPR’S Humiston
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Taylor-Travis marriage recalls prenup laws here
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Fast-Tracking Temporary Lawyer Suspensions
- Perspectives: ‘Slam’ suits: Recalling wrestling cases as WWE arrives
- Best At Work Insights: We tore out the workforce backup generator
Legal Tech
- Criminal defense lawyers have duty to use AI, paper argues
- AI is reshaping family law practice, but attorneys worry about DIY research
- Massachusetts court rejects work product protection for AI documents by girlfriend
