Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee
Citations
- 237 U.S. 189
- 35 S. Ct. 579
- 59 L. Ed. 910
- 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1326
Syllabus
<p>To condemn without á hearing is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth-Amendment.</p> <p>Courts of one State cannot without violating the due process clause extend their authority beyond their jurisdiction so as to condemn the resident of another State when neither his person nor his property is within the jurisdiction of the former. Pennoyer v.' Neff, 95 U. S. 714.</p> <p>A corporation, no more than an individual, is subject to be condemned without a hearing in violation of the due process clause; and the mere fact that one who is a director, but who is not a resident agent, of a foreign corporation resides within a State does not give the courts of that State jurisdiction over a corporation which is not doing business and has no resident agent therein. This applies to a judgment even though by implied reservation its effect is limited to the confines of the State.</p> <p>Wherever a provision of the Constitution is applicable the duty to enforce it is all embracing and imperative. Due process cannot be denied in fixing, by judgment, against one beyond jurisdiction of the court, an amount due even though the enforcement of the judgment be postponed until execution issue.</p> <p>The fact that a judgment rendered without due process of law máy not, under the full faith and credit clause, be enforced in another State, affords no ground for the court entering a judgment without jurisdiction in violation of due process of law.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- residence of corporate officer, alone, insufficient to show minimum contacts
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
94 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1945-12-03· cited 18,588×
- Williams v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1943-01-04· cited 1,003×
- Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc.New York Court of Appeals· 1965-05-27· cited 557×
- National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court· 1940-03-04· cited 434×
- Blackmer v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1932-02-15· cited 403×
- McDonald v. MabeeSupreme Court· 1917-03-06· cited 322×
- Jackson v. Independent School District No. 16Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1982-06-08· cited 162×
- Cate v. Archon Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1985-02-19· cited 123×
- Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1968-04-09· cited 120×
- Pizer v. HuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1925-09-18· cited 79×
- Shamblin v. BeasleySupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1999-01-28· cited 62×
- Reynolds v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1916-06-19· cited 57×
- Cheshire National Bank v. JaynesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1916-05-15· cited 56×
- West Publishing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-08-19· cited 55×
- Mueller Brass Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co.D.C. Circuit· 1945-12-06· cited 46×
- Savage v. WelchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1923-09-13· cited 44×
- First National Bank v. Oklahoma Savings & Loan BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1977-09-27· cited 42×
- Cole v. Randall Park Holding Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1988-10-01· cited 41×
- Peguero v. Hernández PellotSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1995-11-14· cited 41×
- Turner v. United Mineral Lands Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1941-04-03· cited 26×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court· 1882-12-18· cited 402×
- Goldey v. Morning NewsSupreme Court· 1895-03-04· cited 318×
- Old Wayne Mut. Life Assn. of Indianapolis v. McDonoughSupreme Court· 1907-01-07· cited 268×
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. SpratleySupreme Court· 1899-01-30· cited 263×
- Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSupreme Court· 1898-04-11· cited 226×
- Freeman v. AldersonSupreme Court· 1886-11-29· cited 165×
- Wilson v. SeligmanSupreme Court· 1892-03-14· cited 76×
- Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co.Supreme Court· 1905-05-29· cited 15×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.