|
Abstract: This article will explore the origins of territoriality in judicial jurisdiction by tracing the lineage of the service of process rule. The service of process rule has two halves: 1) that in-state service is necessary for a court to assert jurisdiction over the defendant, and 2) that such service is sufficient to invest the court with jurisdiction. I will refer to the first half of the rule as "the service of process requirement." Since the service of process requirement is the direct ancestor of the modern "minimum contacts" test, this article will focus on the origins of this requirement. Recently, in Burnham, the United States Supreme Court found the second half of the service of process rule, often referred to as "transient jurisdiction," to be constitutional. With respect to the service of process requirement, I will demonstrate that contrary to the currently accepted view, both this requirement and the territoriality it represented have an old and distinguished pedigree. I will further demonstrate that the purpose of the requirement was to balance the conflicting goals of protecting each state's sovereignty from encroachment by other states and assuring that the recognitional practice under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the recently ratified Constitution would bind these mutually jealous states into a nation. Thus, I Will show that the predominant purpose of the territorial nature of the service of process requirement was to promote interstate federalism.
Jurisdiction, constitution, service of process
|