Also known as:adjudicative jurisdiction · adjudicatory jurisdiction
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The power of a court to enter a judgment that binds a defendant personally or affects the defendant's interest in property. The exercise of this power is limited by the Due Process Clause, which requires sufficient contacts between the forum state and the defendant, the underlying transaction, or the property at issue.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Nonresident Parentage Claim
Craig resided temporarily in State L for four months while on assignment. During that stay he entered a relationship with Maxwell, a State L resident, and the couple conceived a child there. After Craig returned to State K, Maxwell filed a parentage action in State L court. The court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Craig because the conception occurred in State L and the statutory conditions for jurisdiction over a nonresident are met.
General Jurisdiction Over Corporation
A group of plaintiffs in California sued Daimler AG, a German corporation, for events that occurred entirely in Argentina. Daimler maintained some contacts with California through its U.S. subsidiary but none related to the Argentine claims. The Supreme Court held that California lacked general jurisdiction because Daimler's in-state activities were not so continuous and systematic as to render it at home in the forum.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uniform Acts
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Daimler AG v. Bauman571 U.S. 117, 139 n.20 (2014)
Sequestration Of Corporate Stock
Shareholders of a Delaware corporation filed suit in Delaware against nonresident officers and directors for alleged mismanagement. The plaintiffs sought to sequester the defendants' stock in the Delaware company to obtain jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the mere presence of the stock in Delaware did not supply the minimum contacts required for jurisdiction to adjudicate the personal claims.
Shaffer v. Heitner433 U.S. 186 (1977)
Competency Hearing In Capital Case
A death-row inmate filed a successive habeas petition raising a Ford claim that he was incompetent to be executed. The state argued the petition was successive and therefore barred. The Supreme Court held that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the new claim because the factual basis for the competency issue had not arisen until after the first petition was resolved.
Panetti v. Quarterman551 U.S. 930, 959 (2007)
Stream Of Commerce Product Claim
A California plaintiff was injured by an allegedly defective motorcycle tire valve manufactured by a Taiwanese company. The component part had been sold to a Japanese tire maker that incorporated it into tires sold worldwide, including in California. The Supreme Court held that the Taiwanese manufacturer's mere awareness that its product might reach California through the stream of commerce was insufficient to support personal jurisdiction.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.480 U.S. 102 (1987)
Antitrust Suit Against Insurers
California and other states sued several London-based insurers alleging a conspiracy to restrict certain reinsurance coverage in the United States. The defendants argued that the Sherman Act did not reach their foreign conduct. The Supreme Court held that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the antitrust claims because the alleged conduct produced substantial effects within the United States.
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California509 U.S. 764, 817, 113 S.Ct. 2891, 125 L.Ed.2d 612 (1998)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What distinguishes jurisdiction to adjudicate from subject-matter jurisdiction?+
Jurisdiction to adjudicate concerns a court's power to bind a particular defendant or affect property and is limited by due process contacts requirements. Subject-matter jurisdiction concerns the court's authority over the type of case or controversy presented.
Supporting sources
Does lack of jurisdiction over one party prevent adjudication as to others?+
No. Under the Uniform Parentage Act, lack of jurisdiction over one individual does not preclude the court from adjudicating parentage in a manner that binds another individual over whom jurisdiction exists.
Supporting sources
When may a court exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident in a parentage action?+
A court with jurisdiction to adjudicate parentage may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident if the conditions of the state's Uniform Interstate Family Support Act are satisfied, such as when the individual engaged in sexual intercourse in the state that may have resulted in conception.
Supporting sources
433 U.S. 186 (1977)Conflict of Laws
…of the sequestration procedure and approval of that procedure in the opinions of this Court, Delaware's interest in asserting jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of mismanagement of a Delaware corporation, and the safeguards for defendants that it found in the Delaware statute. Appellants' claim that the Delaware courts did not have…