Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Holding

• Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
• A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
• A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
• An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
• jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
• proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
• jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
• jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
• Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
• Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
• Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.