Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federal Procedure-Venue-Applicability Of Section 1404(A) Of New Title 28 To Anti-Trust Suits, Morris G. Shanker S. Ed.
Federal Procedure-Venue-Applicability Of Section 1404(A) Of New Title 28 To Anti-Trust Suits, Morris G. Shanker S. Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Working directly from a branch office in Washington, D.C., defendant corporation solicited orders and distributed films in the state of Virginia, although it had not registered as a foreign corporation in that state. Alleging that the defendant had violated the anti-trust laws by its activities in Virginia, plaintiff brought a civil action for damages and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Pursuant to section 14O4(a) of Title 28 U.S.C. defendant moved to transfer the action to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Held, since the defendant was not transacting …
Jurisdiction-Basis And Range Of Process-Recent Developments, Thomas Hartwell S. Ed.
Jurisdiction-Basis And Range Of Process-Recent Developments, Thomas Hartwell S. Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Since Pennoyer v. Neff, holding that mere notice was an insufficient basis for in personam jurisdiction, it has generally been held that an in personam judgment requires service, as distinguished from notice, on a defendant present or domiciled within the jurisdiction. With the increased tempo of interstate activities, however, it has become expedient to relax the concept of physical power as being the basis of jurisdiction, which prompted the Pennoyer decision. Presence has assumed a more elaborate meaning, while service has become more closely equated with adequate notice. Illustrative of this development is the recent decision of Traveler's Health …
Jurisdiction-Basis And Range Of Process-Recent Developments, Thomas Hartwell S. Ed.
Jurisdiction-Basis And Range Of Process-Recent Developments, Thomas Hartwell S. Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Since Pennoyer v. Neff, holding that mere notice was an insufficient basis for in personam jurisdiction, it has generally been held that an in personam judgment requires service, as distinguished from notice, on a defendant present or domiciled within the jurisdiction. With the increased tempo of interstate activities, however, it has become expedient to relax the concept of physical power as being the basis of jurisdiction, which prompted the Pennoyer decision. Presence has assumed a more elaborate meaning, while service has become more closely equated with adequate notice. Illustrative of this development is the recent decision of Traveler's Health …