Demise of Foreign Attachment, The
No Thumbnail Available
Bourne, Richard W.
FIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|Virtually all the states have laws which purport to authorize jurisdiction against nonresident and foreign corporation defendants to be obtained by means of summary attachment of any property such defendants have which may be found within the state. These statutes are commonly called foreign attachment statutes, and the jurisdiction authorized under them is commonly called quasi in rem. For nearly a century after Pennoyer v. Neff gave implicit approval to foreign attachment in 1878, the Supreme Court did not question the legitimacy of state use of foreign attachment statutes as a means of securing state court jurisdiction over out-of-staters. The practice was challenged, on procedural due process grounds, in 1977 in Shaffer v. Heitner, but the Supreme Court declined to address the challenge. Instead, the Court held that the minimum contacts doctrine of International Shoe Co. v. Washington rendered unconstitutional assertions of quasi in rem jurisdiction by any fora with which foreign defendants lacked contacts sufficient to justify forcing them to litigate without offending "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."...
21 Creighton L. Rev. 141 (1987-1988)
Creighton University School of Law