National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent

Last updated
National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 20, 1963
Decided January 6, 1964
Full case nameNational Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent
Citations 375 U.S. 311 ( more )
84 S. Ct. 411; 11 L. Ed. 2d 354; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2032
Prior history 311 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1962)
Holding
Service of process upon a party's designated agent does not invalidate personal jurisdiction that would otherwise be established, if the agent gives prompt notice to the party.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
Majority Stewart
Dissent Black
Dissent Brennan, joined by Warren, Goldberg

National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that service of process upon a party's designated agent does not invalidate personal jurisdiction that would otherwise be established, if the agent gives prompt notice to the party. [1]

Supreme Court of the United States Highest court in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions.

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law and facts involved in the suit. If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a party, its rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction.

Contents

Background

Defendants Szukhents, farmers in Michigan, entered into a contractual relationship with plaintiff National Equipment Rental, a New York-based company, for the leasing of farm equipment. This contract, written by National Equipment Rental, included a term designating Florence Weinberg, at a New York address, as agent for service of process regarding the contract. The Szukhents had never met Ms. Weinberg. In suing the Szukhents in Federal court (E.D.N.Y.), National Equipment Rental served process upon Ms. Weinberg, who then notified the Szukhents of the suit via mail. [2] Subject-matter jurisdiction was founded upon diversity of citizenship. [3] The Szukhents challenged personal jurisdiction on the grounds that there was no constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction. [4]

Contract agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by multiple parties

A contract is a legally-binding agreement which recognises and governs the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement. A contract is legally enforceable because it meets the requirements and approval of the law. An agreement typically involves the exchange of goods, services, money, or promises of any of those. In the event of breach of contract, the law awards the injured party access to legal remedies such as damages and cancellation.

Lease business contract between two parties, the lessor (owner) and lessee (user), for use of property

A lease is a contractual arrangement calling for the lessee (user) to pay the lessor (owner) for use of an asset. Property, buildings and vehicles are common assets that are leased. Industrial or business equipment is also leased.

The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and non-contractual fiduciary relationships that involve a person, called the agent, that is authorized to act on behalf of another to create legal relations with a third party. Succinctly, it may be referred to as the equal relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or implicitly, authorizes the agent to work under his or her control and on his or her behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him or her and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the ability of parties to a contract to agree in advance to the jurisdiction of a particular court. [5] The Court then proceeded to consider the validity of the agency relationship between Ms. Weinberg and the Szukhents, and found that since Ms. Weinberg appropriately notified the Szukhents, the agency was valid under relevant laws, and therefore the service upon Ms. Weinberg was effective service upon the Szukhents. [6]

With effective service, the Court held that personal jurisdiction over the Szukhents had been established in the District Court, pursuant to the then-effective Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1). [7]

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body. Although federal courts are required to apply the substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is in question, the federal courts almost always use the FRCP as their rules of civil procedure.

Justice Black dissented, and would have found the agency relationship invalid by applying of New York state appellate court precedent, thus affirming the District Court's quashing of service. Alternatively, if defining agency law for the purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Justice Black would not include the relationship in question in such a definition. Finally, Justice Black questioned whether the Szukhents had received due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which form parts of the basis for Constitutional personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. [8]

Justice Brennan, with whom the Chief Justice and Justice Goldberg joined, agreed with Justice Black's second contention, and would have held that 4(d)(1) requires a Federal standard for agency, and that the relationship with Ms. Weinberg would not meet such requirements. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

Article Three of the United States Constitution portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

United States courts of appeals post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals or circuit courts are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system. A court of appeals decides appeals from the district courts within its federal judicial circuit, and in some instances from other designated federal courts and administrative agencies.

Federal government of the United States National government of the United States

The Federal Government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic in North America, composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and several island possessions. The federal government is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

Service of process is the procedure by which a party to a lawsuit gives an appropriate notice of initial legal action to another party, court, or administrative body in an effort to exercise jurisdiction over that person so as to enable that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body, or other tribunal.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Current US federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appeals from the D.C. Circuit, as with all U.S. Courts of Appeals, are heard on a discretionary basis by the Supreme Court. It should not be confused with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is limited in jurisdiction by subject matter rather than geography, or with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is roughly equivalent to a state supreme court in the District of Columbia, and was established in 1970 to relieve the D.C. Circuit from having to take appeals from the local D.C. trial court.

A waiver is the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal Fugitive Slave Act (1793) precluded a Pennsylvania state law that prohibited blacks from being taken out of the free state of Pennsylvania into slavery. The Court overturned the conviction of slavecatcher Edward Prigg as a result.

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection. However, because most of the states' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). This landmark case made the exclusionary rule enforceable against the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.

Federal judiciary of the United States judiciary

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die.

Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that it was appropriate for United States federal courts to abstain from hearing a case in order to allow state courts to decide substantial Constitutional issues that touch upon sensitive areas of state social policy.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a party, particularly a corporation, may be subject to the jurisdiction of a state court if it has "minimum contacts" with that state. The ruling has important consequences for corporations involved in interstate commerce, their payments to state unemployment compensation funds, limits on the power of states imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the sufficiency of service of process, and, especially, personal jurisdiction.

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.

Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), is a notable case in United States civil procedure that came before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing personal jurisdiction.

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving strict products liability, personal injury and various procedural issues and considerations. The 1980 opinion, written by Justice Byron White, is included in the first-year civil procedure curriculum at nearly every American law school for its focus on personal jurisdiction.

Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932), is the first United States Supreme Court decision that approved the adjudication of private rights by an administrative agency, not an Article III court. The Court held that the United States Employees' Compensation Commission satisfied Fifth Amendment Due Process and the requirements of Article III with its court-like procedures and because it invests the final power of decision in Article III courts.

Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed. Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices. Justice Brennan wrote an opinion joined by three other Justices. Justices White and Stevens wrote separate opinions.

FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (1966), is a 1966 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may sue in federal court to obtain a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo against the consummation of a merger that the agency persuasively contends violates the antitrust laws.

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___ (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim.

Emergency Price Control Act of 1942

The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 is a United States statute imposing an economic intervention as restrictive measures to control inflationary spiraling and pricing elasticity of goods and services while providing economic efficiency to support the United States national defense and security. The Act of Congress established the Office of Price Administration (OPA) as a federal independent agency being officially created by Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 11, 1941.

References

  1. ↑ National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311 (1964).
  2. ↑ 375 U.S. at 313-314.
  3. ↑ 375 U.S. at 313 n. 2.
  4. ↑ 375 U.S. at 313-314.
  5. ↑ 375 U.S. at 316.
  6. ↑ 375 U.S. at 316-318
  7. ↑ 375 U.S. at 318.
  8. ↑ 375 U.S. at 318 (Black, J., dissenting).
  9. ↑ 375 U.S. at 333.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.