Also known as: in rem jurisdiction · in-rem · against the thing · against the property
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Jurisdiction asserted directly against a specific item of property or thing. The proceeding determines rights in the res itself and binds all persons with interests in it rather than imposing personal liability on any individual.
Lena attaches PixelForge's shares in a Delaware corporation to sue for unpaid work performed entirely in California. The Delaware court finds the shares alone insufficient to support jurisdiction because the claim bears no relation to the property. Judgment cannot be entered even to the extent of the attached shares.
California prosecutes Hurtado by information rather than grand jury indictment. The Court treats the proceeding as determining the defendant's status under state law. The conviction stands because due process does not require indictment in every criminal case.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Central Hanover Bank seeks judicial settlement of a common trust fund. The court requires mailed notice to known beneficiaries because the proceeding affects their interests in the res. Publication alone is inadequate when better methods exist.
Zapata sues Unterweser in Florida after the Bremen tows its damaged rig into Tampa. The contract designates English courts for any dispute. The Supreme Court upholds the clause and stays the American action even though the vessel was arrested in rem.
Mitchell obtains a judgment against Neff by attaching Oregon land after personal service in California. The Supreme Court holds the Oregon court lacked jurisdiction over the property because Neff had no contacts with Oregon. The later federal judgment quieting title in Neff is affirmed.
Northern Pipeline sues Marathon in bankruptcy court over a contract claim. The Supreme Court rules the bankruptcy judges lack authority to enter final judgment because the proceeding is not truly in rem over the estate. The judgment is vacated for want of jurisdiction.
No. Modern doctrine requires minimum contacts even for in rem or quasi in rem actions when the claim is unrelated to the property. Mere attachment of unrelated assets does not satisfy due process.
True in rem jurisdiction determines rights in the property against the world. Quasi in rem jurisdiction affects only the interests of particular persons in the property and does not bind non-parties.
Yes, but the same minimum contacts analysis applies. Ownership of stock in a forum corporation does not create jurisdiction over an unrelated claim simply because the shares are deemed located in the state.
Due process demands notice reasonably calculated to reach interested parties. Publication alone is insufficient when the owners' names and addresses are known or easily ascertainable.
…assertion of jurisdiction over the individual defendants (appellants) in this case cannot be sustained on the basis of the in rem jurisdiction theory that the stock in the corporation was “located” in Delaware and was the subject of the lawsuit. Pp. 196-200. (a) The fiction that a court’s power to adjudicate a…