Hess v. Pawloski PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Notes...

Description

CIV PRO I Hess v. Pawloski 274 U.S. 352 (1927) Facts: - The plaintiff (Pawloski) sued the defendant (Hess) who was a Pennsylvania resident in Massachusetts for personal injuries sustained in an auto accident in Massachusetts - The jurisdiction of the Massachusetts court was based on a Massachusetts statute which provided that the acceptance of a non-resident of the privilege of operating motor vehicle in that state would allow him to be served all lawful processes in any action or proceeding against him coming from any accident or collision in which the non-resident was involved in while operating a motor vehicle in the state of Massachusetts o The MA statue provided that any nonresident by driving on MA roads consented to the appointment of the MA registrar of motor vehicles as the nonresident’s agent for service of process o The plaintiff was also requirement to forward a copy of the summons and complaint by registered mail to the non-resident o Valid service of process was constituted by service on the registrar AND registered mailing - Service on the registrar would be effective to subject the defendant to Massachusetts jurisdiction provided that the plaintiff sent notice of service and a copy of the process to the defendant by registered Mail and obtained a signed return receipt o Pawloski served the MA registrar of motor vehicles and also sent Hess a copy of the summons and complaint by registered mail o Hess challenged the jurisdiction arguing that the MA statute violated the 14th amendment’s Due Process Clause Procedural History: - The plaintiff obtain jurisdiction through proper service to the defendant as required by statute - The trial court rejected Hess’s objection to jurisdiction and anda judgment was entered for Pawloski - On appeal, the MA Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling - The Hess appealed and sought Supreme Court review on the ground that he was not subject to Massachusetts jurisdiction - Supreme Court granted a writ of error - The Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction Issue: - Does a statute imposing implied consent to service of process violate the 14th amendment due process clause? Holding/Reasoning: - The Court held that a motor vehicle law providing for implied consent to service on the state registrar does not violate due process clause

CIV PRO I -

-

-

-

Pennoyer v. Nef—A state court can't obtain jurisdiction by service of process on a nonresident outside the state. The Court held Due process requires actual service of process on the non-resident (or the nonresident’s agent), within the forum state The constitution's privileges and immunity's clause prohibit a state from discriminating against nonresidents OR excluding nonresident individuals from doing business within the state Each state has the power to regulate motor vehicles within its state as long as those regulations don't violate the constitution The court holds that the Massachusetts statute is valid because: o (1) the law does not discriminate against nonresidents—it put residents and nonresidents on an equal footing o (2) the statute was limited in nature as it only applied to motor vehicle accidents o (3) the plaintiff must Mail a copy of service to the defendant via registered Mail with a return receipt requested demonstrating that the nonresident defendant received actual notice of the litigation o (4) The statute allows for a continuance is to give nonresidents reasonable time to respond Court relied on Kane v. New Jersey which held that—nonresidents couldn't drive cars in New Jersey, unless they appointed agents to receive service of process

The court held that the Massachusetts statute did not violate the due process clause and affirmed the ruling of the MA Supreme Court The Court attempted to balance the state's power to regulate its highways and preserve public safety WITH the due process requirement of actual service of process on a defendant or the defendant’s agent (whether that agent was implied by law)...