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.
PA: YES GR: YES RF: YES |
Think of this as a case of possible specific jurisdiction, depending on application of evidence & but-for tests. PA: YES GR: MAYBE 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. PA: YES 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.