Hess V. Pawloski Case Summary

Christian E. Foster
Civil Procedure
Section 1 Chapter 2 Summary In order for the judicial system to operate, the court must have the ability to exercise its power over citizens within the confines of law. To do this, a court exerts jurisdiction over individuals, allowing it to enter binding judgements in suits that arise due to contact in the jurisdiction. There are three types of jurisdiction exercised by state courts: In Personam, In Rem, and Quasi In Rem. In Personam jurisdiction is jurisdiction gained by the consent of the parties, both actually and/or constructively. This can happen by consent, presence, or citizenship. When jurisdiction is gained by consent, the party has come to the jurisdiction and consented, or given agreement,
Suits involving this type of jurisdiction are actions over property and land, not persons. It is an action over the property or land itself which lies within the states limits. Alternatively, Quasi in rem jurisdiction can be exercised in a suit over the value of an individual's property. In order to exercise this jurisdiction, the plaintiff must have seized and attached the property. In an effort to expand jurisdiction, the court instituted the minimum contacts test. This test was expanded by Hess v. Pawloski, when a Massachusetts court determined that due his activities within the state, a nonresident of Massachusetts was still subject to the court’s jurisdiction, regarding a suit for a traffic accident. The court held that use of a state's highways, was essentially consent to be sued within that state. Courts have also determined that they will have jurisdiction over a party when they make a general appearance in the state, but not when the defendant is only appearing to contest jurisdiction. Under the minimum contacts test, the court may exercise jurisdiction either specifically or generally. Specific jurisdiction takes place when an isolated act has occurred, giving jurisdiction over that act only. However, if the defendant has many contacts and activities within the state, he can be sued over any and all
This requirement assures that the defendant is properly made aware of the pending lawsuit. In order for notice to have sufficed, there must have been reasonable efforts to make the defendant aware. These efforts must be reasonably decided and must have been a reasonable likelihood of notice actually being conveyed. This was the case of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, as the court determined that in notifying other bank beneficiaries, the "means employed" must be comparable to that of someone who actually wants to inform the other