Does a person have to abide by a subpeona issued in another state?
Full Question:
Answer:
When another states issues a subpoena, the home state may enforce it under the legal theory of comity, which states use to provide reciprocal enforcement of out-of-state orders. There are certain considerations made in determining whether to enforce an out-of-state order. First, the foreign court must have personal and subject matter jurisdiction to enforce its order within its own domain. Second, the procedural and substantive law applied by the foreign court must be reasonably comparable to that of the home state. Third, the foreign court's order must not
have been falsely or fraudulently obtained. Fourth, enforcement of the foreign court's order must not be contrary to the public policy of the home state, or prejudice the rights of
the home state or her citizens. If these elements are lacking, it is possible to make a motion to quash (cancel) the subpoena. A protective order may also be requested where a subpoena is being used to harrass, or where the obedience of the subpoena would be unfair, unduly burdensome, or oppressive.
When a lawsuit is filed, addition to the mandatory requirement of having subject-matter jurisdiction, a court needs to acquire in personam jurisdiction over the respondent/defendant. Any order issued by a judge when both subject-matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction has not been properly conferred is void, of no legal force or effect.
In personam jurisdiction is obtained when the respondent/ defendant is properly served with a summons and complaint either by certified mail, by personal service, or by publication (only rarely used and only when the address of the respondent/defendant is unknown).
In order to serve a defendant with the state's long arm statute, the defendant must have minimum contacts with the state. Minimum contacts can consist of either some type of systematic and continuous contact with the forum ("general jurisdiction"), or isolated or occasional contacts purposefully directed toward the forum ("specific jurisdiction"). A single contact can suffice to establish personal jurisdiction, but where jurisdiction is based on a single contact, the nature and quality of the contact is determinative. The principal test of foreseeability in a due process analysis "is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate the possibility of defending a suit in the forum.
When a pleading is filed, the opposing party typically must be served with a copy. A court can obtain personal jurisdiction if both parties consent to it. For example, a defendant may consent to the court's jurisdiction by filing a response to the lawsuit with that court. As a condition of incorporating or doing business in the state, a company is often required to consent, in advance, to personal jurisdiction in the state and to provide the Secretary of State with an agent to accept service of process. A person may grant consent by signing a contract that has a provision requiring you to agree in advance to the personal jurisdiction of a state.
Venue is typically proper where the defendant resides, conducts business, where a contract is formed, where an accident occurs, or where the contract provides for the case to be brought. Typically, a defendant needs to have minimum contacts with the forum to pass due process requirements for being served with a complaint. Due process requires it to be reasonably foreseeable that a person would be called to defend in that court.
Generally, the requirement of minimum contacts means that the defendant has to have taken actions that were purposefully directed towards the forum state. Such actions may include, among others, selling goods in the state, being incorporated in the state, visiting the state, or bringing property in the state.