This is an INCORRECT answer

來源: sjy0627 2009-02-10 21:31:39 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (511 bytes)
回答: 美國跨州訴訟投票決定2009-02-10 19:19:30
The short answer is since A owns real estate in State B, there is Quasi-in-rem jurisdiction to sue A in the state court of State B. But the recovery will be limited to the value of the property A owns in State B.

Of course, there is a possibility to use long arm statute of State B to sue A in State B.

And I do not think A can be sued in federal district court in state B, because the disputed amount is no larger than 75000 dollars and it appears that there is no federal question in this case

所有跟帖: 

I thought quasi-in-rem jurisdiction is gone -caliber- 給 caliber 發送悄悄話 caliber 的博客首頁 (127 bytes) () 02/11/2009 postreply 08:56:03

here's a link to prove my point -caliber- 給 caliber 發送悄悄話 caliber 的博客首頁 (104 bytes) () 02/11/2009 postreply 15:11:26

回複:here's a link to prove my point -sjy0627- 給 sjy0627 發送悄悄話 (699 bytes) () 02/11/2009 postreply 17:43:30

ok, now we are back to square 1 again -caliber- 給 caliber 發送悄悄話 caliber 的博客首頁 (777 bytes) () 02/11/2009 postreply 20:56:15

回複:ok, now we are back to square 1 again -sjy0627- 給 sjy0627 發送悄悄話 (619 bytes) () 02/11/2009 postreply 21:21:07

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”