#PersonalJurisdiction #InThisState – who can be sued in state courts? The jurisdiction of Indiana courts extends as far as the limits of the Due Process Clause *under the federal Constitution*. Attaway v. Omega, 903 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). An Indiana court has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident (a non-D.C., Federal US person) defendant *only* if the defendant’s contacts with Indiana are sufficient to establish that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there. Indiana courts consider whether the defendant had “certain minimum contacts” with Indiana such that “the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945); Anthem Ins. Companies, Inc. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 730 N.E.2d 1227, 1233 (Ind. 2000); Breneman v. Slusher, 768 N.E.2d 451, 459 (Ind. 2002). Indiana Trial Rule 4.4A sets out eight categories of actions that constitute sufficient minimum contacts: (1) doing any business "in this state"; (2) causing personal injury or property damage by an act or omission done within this state; (3) causing personal injury or property damage "in this state" by an occurrence, act or omission done outside this state if [the nonresident] regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue or benefit from goods, materials, or services used, consumed, or rendered in this state; (4) having supplied or contracted to supply services rendered or to be rendered or goods or materials furnished or to be furnished "in this state"; (5) owning, using, or possessing any real property or an interest in real property "within this state"; (6) contracting to insure or act as surety for or on behalf of any person, property or risk located "within this state" at the time the contract was made; (7) living in the marital relationship "within the state" notwithstanding a subsequent departure from the state, as to all obligations for alimony, custody, child support, or property settlement, if the other party to the marital relationship continues to reside "in the state"; or (8) abusing, harassing, or disturbing the peace of, or violating a protective or restraining order for the protection of, any person "within the state" by an act or omission done "in this state", or outside this state if the act or omission is part of a continuing course of conduct having an effect "in this state". #TERROTORIALJURISDICTION: Whereas "in this state" and "within this state" means: [https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/80th-congress/session-1/c80s1ch389.pdf] 4 USC 110 (d) The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States. (e) The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department. establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area. or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State. #NorthCaroliina “N.C. G.S. 105-164.3(7) “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of North Carolina and includes all territories within such limits **owned or ceded to the United States of America**. #California and North Carolina’s consistent definition’s of those states ”municipal law'” which require some sort of ”contract” for proper application within the “federal areas” of the “NEW UNION.” “Section 11205. “In this State,” etc. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits **owned or ceded to the United States of America**. The Social Security Department created 10 social security districts which like a thin plastic sheet overlay all the 50 states of the union. This creates a “fictional federal state within a state,” for the purposes of applying the “Public Salary Tax Act” to these areas. “There has been created a fictional Federal “state within a state.” Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73. S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440.

Posted by MalikaDulce at 2020-10-12 02:47:28 UTC