Hess v. Pawloski: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
m (1 revision: Upload batch of case briefs in Civ Pro category.)
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Facts''': Plaintiff was driving a car in Massachusetts when he struck and injured defendant. Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. The Massachusetts state law says that if an out-of-state resident operates his motor-vehicle in the state, that is an automatic appointment of the registrar as his attorney. As his attorney, the registrar may receive any actions against the out-of-state resident, and sufficient survice could be made by mailing a copy of the process to the out-of-stater. Defendant was awarded damages. Plaintiff sought to recoup the damages and claimed that the Massachusetts statute is a violation of the 14th amendment, which requires "due process of law".  
{{Infobox Case Brief
 
|court=Supreme Court of the United States
'''Procedural History''': In the original case, the plaintiff was awarded damages. Defendant appealed, S. Ct. affirmed original decision.
|citation=274 U.S. 352
 
|date=May 16, 1927
'''Issue''': "Does a State have the right to subject out-of-state drivers to in personam jurisdiction in suits arising out of accidents in Massachusetts?"
|subject=Civil Procedure
 
|appealed_from=Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
'''Holding''': Yes. A state can't exclude people from driving there, but can exclude out-of-state drivers until they consent to suit in that state. In this case, the consent is implied simply by the act of driving in the state.
|reaffirmed=Kane v. New Jersey
 
|cited=Pennoyer v. Neff
'''Judgment''': Affirmed
|facts=*Hess was driving a car in Massachusetts when he struck and injured Pawloski.
 
*Hess = a resident of Pennsylvania.
'''Reasons''': Service of process must be "within the state of notice upon him or upon some one authorized to accept service for him." Because the registrar was an authorized representative of the plaintiff, this qualifies the service as being served.
*The Massachusetts state law says that if an out-of-state resident operates his motor-vehicle in the state, that is an automatic appointment of the '''state registrar''' as his attorney. As his attorney, the registrar may receive any actions against the out-of-state resident, & sufficient service could be made by mailing a copy of the process to the out-of-stater.
[[Category:Cases:Civil Procedure]]
*
|procedural_history=*In the original case, the plaintiff (Pawloski) sued Hess & Pawloski was awarded damages.
*Defendant (Hess) appealed
*Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed original decision.
|issues="Does a State have the right to subject out-of-state drivers to ''in personam'' jurisdiction in suits arising out of accidents in Massachusetts?"
|arguments=Hess sought to recoup the damages and claimed that the Massachusetts statute is a violation of the 14th amendment, which requires "due process of law".
|holding=Yes. A state can't exclude people from driving there, but can exclude out-of-state drivers until they consent to suit in that state. In this case, the <u>consent is implied</u> simply by the act of <u>driving in the state</u>.
|judgment=Affirmed.
|reasons=Service of process must be "within the state of notice upon him or upon some one authorized to accept service for him." Because the registrar was an authorized representative of the plaintiff, this qualifies the service as being served.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hess-v-pawloski
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/352/
|case_text_source=Justia
}}
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=13P0REaDfJQ
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=fg2tSF_MKAc
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=SwyYyb4S73Y
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=TaunfBrHjQw
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 22:48, April 30, 2024

Hess v. Pawloski
Court Supreme Court of the United States
Citation 274 U.S. 352
Date decided May 16, 1927
Appealed from Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Reaffirmed Kane v. New Jersey
Cited Pennoyer v. Neff

Facts

  • Hess was driving a car in Massachusetts when he struck and injured Pawloski.
  • Hess = a resident of Pennsylvania.
  • The Massachusetts state law says that if an out-of-state resident operates his motor-vehicle in the state, that is an automatic appointment of the state registrar as his attorney. As his attorney, the registrar may receive any actions against the out-of-state resident, & sufficient service could be made by mailing a copy of the process to the out-of-stater.

Procedural History

  • In the original case, the plaintiff (Pawloski) sued Hess & Pawloski was awarded damages.
  • Defendant (Hess) appealed
  • Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed original decision.

Issues

"Does a State have the right to subject out-of-state drivers to in personam jurisdiction in suits arising out of accidents in Massachusetts?"

Arguments

Hess sought to recoup the damages and claimed that the Massachusetts statute is a violation of the 14th amendment, which requires "due process of law".

Holding

Yes. A state can't exclude people from driving there, but can exclude out-of-state drivers until they consent to suit in that state. In this case, the consent is implied simply by the act of driving in the state.

Judgment

Affirmed.

Reasons

Service of process must be "within the state of notice upon him or upon some one authorized to accept service for him." Because the registrar was an authorized representative of the plaintiff, this qualifies the service as being served.

Resources





Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Hess_v._Pawloski&oldid=49572"