This chart explains Shaffer‘s treatment of in rem/quasi-in-rem jurisdiction by recasting Justice Marshall’s decision in light of the three-part specific jurisdiction analysis we have discussed in class.
|IR and QIR I||QIR IIA||QIR IIB|
|Relationship between property and suit||Property subject of the suit||Property related to suit||Property unrelated to suit|
|Shaffer says||“Unusual” for there not to be jurisdiction over property.||The presence of property “may also favor” jurisdiction||Presence of property alone insufficient; no jurisdiction without more contacts.|
|Trying to understand the Shaffer rationale in light of the three-part specific jurisdiction framework.||Think of this as an easy case of specific jurisdiction.
Think of this as a case of possible specific jurisdiction, depending on application of evidence & but-for tests.
RF: PROBABLY YES
Think of this as a case where there are contacts, but they do not give rise to the claim at all, so no specific jurisdiction.
GR: NO, so no specific jur.
RF: N/A b/c no specific jur.
In such a case, you’d need more contacts to permit SJ or GJ.
Without more contacts, the exercise of PJ would be akin to general jurisdiction over owner based on ownership of in-state property.
Presented in review 11/23/15. Posted same day.