PETROWSKI ET AL.
v.
HAWKEYE-SECURITY INSURANCE CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a party's stipulation to submit to the court's jurisdiction waives any objection to personal jurisdiction.
Respondent insurance company moved to quash service of process, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction. After the motion was denied, responden…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Respondent, Hawkeye-Security Insurance Company, filed a motion to quash the return of service of summons on the grounds that the District Court acquired no personal jurisdiction over it and that the power of attorney which it had filed with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of Wisconsin did not authorize him to accept service of process for it in this case. After this motion was denied, respondent filed its answer to the complaint in which it again pressed its claim that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. Subsequently, however, respondent filed (1) a motion to amend its answer and to interplead; (2) a counterclaim; (3) a stipulation and order adding a party-plaintiff and amending the complaint and answer; and (4) a stipulation that judgment be entered against the alleged insured in favor of the additional party-plaintiff. The latter stipulation included the following provision, together with others consistent with it and confirmatory of its purpose:
“1. That each of the parties to this stipulation voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the above entitled Court without service of process herein, the same as if personal service had been obtained by each against the other.”
Following a trial on the merits, judgment was entered against respondent, but the Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, reversed on the ground that respondent’s motion to quash should have been granted. 226 F. 2d 126.
Upon examination of the record and the law, we conclude that the District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and that respondent, by its stipulation, waived any right to assert a lack of personal jurisdiction over it. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to it for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Datamatic Servs. Corp. v. Bescos, 484 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…al Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316, 84 S.Ct. 411, 414, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964), we stated that “parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court,” and in Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Security Co., 350 U.S. 495, 76 S.Ct. 490, 100 L.Ed. 639 (1956), the Court upheld the personal jurisdiction of a District Court on the basis of a stipulation entered into by the defendant. In addition, lower federal courts have found such consent implicit in agreements to arbi…
-
Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1982)…ion of the court. In National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U. S. 311, 316 (1964), we [*704] stated that “parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court,” and in Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Security Co., 350 U. S. 495 (1956), the Court upheld the personal jurisdiction of a District Court on the basis of a stipulation entered into by the defendant. In addition, lower federal courts have found such consent implicit in agreements to arbitrate. See Victory Transport…
-
Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1989)…694, 702 (1982); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 398 (1975); Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379 (1884). See, e. g., Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, supra; Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 350 U. S. 495 (1956). See, e. g., Verlinden B. V., 461 U. S., at 491; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824). ‘Gibbs concerned a state-law claim jurisdictionally pendent to one of federal law, but no reason appears why the identical principles sho…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 226 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1955)