Also known as: in rem
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle that the mere presence of a defendant's property in the forum does not establish minimum contacts sufficient for jurisdiction when the dispute is unrelated to that property.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
PixelForge, a California startup, faces a contract claim from Lena over work performed entirely in California. Lena attaches PixelForge's Delaware shares in an unrelated chipmaker and sues in Delaware court. The court grants the motion to dismiss because the shares alone supply no minimum contacts tied to the claim.
Delta Steel sues Apex Constructors in State E for nonpayment on a project completed in State D. Delta attaches Apex's idle cranes stored in State E. The court dismisses because the cranes bear no relation to the contract dispute and create no purposeful contacts.
Casey sues Meridian Health Systems in State B over an employment contract formed and performed in State C. Casey attaches Meridian's investment account in State B. The court grants dismissal because the account is unrelated to the claim and fails to establish minimum contacts.
Vanessa sues Dr. Queen in State B for malpractice that occurred entirely in State A. Vanessa attaches Queen's vacation condominium in State B. The court dismisses because ownership of the unrelated property supplies no contacts sufficient for jurisdiction.
William sues Bright Housing in State C for malpractice arising from litigation in State A. William attaches the firm's vacant investment condominium in State C. The court grants dismissal because the passive property creates no purposeful contacts connected to the claim.
Erin sues a charity in State B for unpaid consulting performed in State A. Erin attaches the charity's vacant camp property in State B. The court dismisses because the unused land alone does not satisfy minimum contacts for the unrelated contract claim.
It refers to conduct or an action undertaken for one's own benefit or in one's own interest.
The minimum contacts standard applies to all exercises of state-court jurisdiction, including quasi in rem. Mere presence of unrelated property in the forum is insufficient.
No. Attachment of a defendant's property does not create minimum contacts when the claim has no relation to that property.
…assertion of jurisdiction over the individual defendants (appellants) in this case cannot be sustained on the basis of the in rem jurisdiction theory that the stock in the corporation was “located” in Delaware and was the subject of the lawsuit. Pp. 196-200. (a) The fiction that a court’s power to adjudicate a…