English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In the venerable case of Pennoyer v. Neff,' the Supreme Court expounded for the first time what limits the Due Process Clause placed on state-court jurisdiction. The Court held that service of process and a defendant's physical presence in a state when served were necessary and sufficient conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction.2 The significance of Pennoyer, however, transcends its specific holding, for Pennoyer, in the words of one commentator, "represents a particular way of looking at the law of jurisdiction. 3 Although subsequent decisions significantly altered the Pennoyer jurisdictional rules, the conceptual structure of the opinion has remained "substantially intact." In essence, the Supreme Court conceptualized jurisdiction as a function of state territorial sovereignty; that is, the exclusive right of every state to determine the legal status of everyone and everything within its borders.5 If a person entered a state and became subject to its laws, even for a brief period of time, then the state's tribunals could exercise full authority over him. In the time since Pennoyer, the Court's jurisdictional jurisprudence has continued to exhibit a deep concern for protecting state sovereignty.6 The Court looks for

"Some of the Most Embarrassing Questions": Extraterritorial Divorces and the Problem of Jurisdiction before Pennoyer