Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Citation

76 Harvard Law Journal 303 (1962)


Professor Carrington examines the proposed amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would confer quasi in rem jurisdiction on the federal courts and concludes that it should be rejected. Arguing that the expansion of the concept of personal jurisdiction has removed most of what justification there once was for quasi in rem jurisdiction, the author maintains that the latter jurisdiction often provides only limited and uncertain judgments for local plaintiffs while compelling nonresident defendants to litigate in an inconvenient forum, and herefore should not be made available in the federal courts merely to bring their practice into conformity with that of the courts of the states.