ok, now we are back to square 1 again

This is turning into a civ pro discussion now. Great.

assuming B state has personal jurisdiction, because A owns a house therefore minimum contact requirement is met, don't you have to look at the Venue rules to figure out if it is ok to bring suit in B state?

My original answer is based on the assumption that the state's long-arm statute would give State B personal jurisdiction over A. If that is the case, then venue clause has to be considered to determine if a case can be brought in State B, correct?

Or are you still saying that assuming that if State B has personal jurisdiction, then quasi-in-rem thing may apply?

I don't mean to argue with you for the sake of argument. Just want to lean the true answer to this question.

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：ok, now we are back to square 1 again -sjy0627- ♂ (619 bytes) () 02/11/2009 postreply 21:21:07