Legal Glossary
Well it wasn’t that hard to yet. Brennan was an Eisenhauer p, 1956. So when Hansen v Denckla was put to the test in 1958 Brennan was still a pup and he didnt know where he stood. Hansen v Denckla is one of the only cases decided by the Supreme court in the last half century where the decision actually affirmed states rights in the matter of personal jurisdiction. At some point in the case the even make a remark like that. They say something like this: “just because the last ten cases we looked at we have expanded personal jurisdiction and just because the next 10 cases we look at will expand personal jurisdiction, don’t get the idea that this is all we know to do. Every now and then we’ll go the other way, just to remind ourselves that we do decide things.”
That’s basically what it comes down to. Hansen v Denckla was a good one to choose for this treatment because it involved two states competing for jurisdiction, which is unusual. Usually its just the plaintiff and defendant who give a shit. They try to make it look like the state cares, “California has an abiding interest in keeping its citizens safe from exploding Honda motor bike tires” (like in Asahi), but if the matter of jurisdiction is going to ruin someone’s life, its the poor plaintiff with a couple thousand in doctors bills. The state is a long-term abstract type concern. So here these two Donner girls called Hansen (who obviously have none of the perspective of the Donner party that starved to death in the California Sierra Nevadas, probably already sporting bellies stuffed with instant custard) now want to deprive their sister of her inheritance and are willing to sue to get their hands on her share and to take it all the way to the supreme court. Regan and Goneril anyone? Anyway so the two sisters manage to con the Florida court to siding with them on the argument that Mama Donner lived in Florida (even though she kept all her assets in Delaware). Meanwhile the other daughter was busy getting a decision in Delaware, so what jurisdiction would rule?
The court breaks it down with the same old tired language that theyve been using for a hundred years, have since been using for another 60 years and doubtless will going on using though it bores the hell out of everyone who wants to hear something new from the justices, a new theory, a new song, a new lick, something. (and this is the big “we are alive case, when they depart from the ususal decision to expand jurisdiction, remember). What’s the language?
1. jurisdiction over a non-resident
2. sporadic and inadvertent contacts with the forum state
3. purposive availment of the forum state
4. advertise in the forum state
5. trustee taking advantage of privileges of the forum state.
You can see where this is going. It doesn’t matter what the Florida court said because it has no authority to exercise jurisdiction over the Delaware Trustee. The Delaware Trustee gets to do whatever it wants to with the Trust money and the Delaware trustee wants to share it with Cordelia. The Delaware trustee, goes the argument, did not advertise in Florida. It had contact only by sending checks to the Mrs. Donner, and occasionally speaking on the phone with her. The trustee did not “reach in” to florida for clients or business. They stayed in Delaware and hassled with the Delaware clients.
So wow, surprise! for the first time we hear that a state may not exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident. The contacts with florida were sporadic, inadvertent, non-deliberate, negligable…etc. adjectives can substitute for logic. Even worse, the claim does not arise from these contacts. What does the claim arise from? the death of mrs. donner not the address or the sending of the checks, not the telephone calls, but Mrs. Donner’s death, presumably not of starvation.
Something tells me that the honorable court had read King Lear and they found a way to not let Regan and Goneril run off with the loot. Many justices are failed writers. They figured they could re-write the Bard’s (Shakespeare’s) story, giving it a happy end. Once Brennan gets going there will be no more of that.
Terms Used: advertise in the forum state, availmant of the forum state, brennan, goneril, king lear, negligable contacts, non-resident jurisdiction, office in the forum state, sporadic and inadvertant contacts,