Grace v. MacArthur
170 F.Supp. 442, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 23, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4023 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person on a commercial aircraft flying within the navigable airspace above a state is considered to be within the 'territorial limits' of that state for the purpose of valid in-person service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f).
Facts:
- Preston W. Grace and Charlotte B. Grace entered into a contract with a group of defendants known collectively as 'Bankers Group' for the exchange of property.
- The 'Bankers Group' included Bankers Life & Casualty Co., its president John D. MacArthur, and an individual named Ronnie Smith.
- A dispute arose concerning an alleged breach of this contract.
- Ronnie Smith, a citizen of Tennessee, boarded a commercial Braniff airplane for a non-stop flight from Memphis, Tennessee, to Dallas, Texas.
- While the airplane was in flight, it passed through the airspace directly over Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Procedural Posture:
- Preston W. Grace and Charlotte B. Grace filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (a federal trial court) against Bankers Life & Casualty Co., John D. MacArthur, and Ronnie Smith.
- Service of process on Ronnie Smith was effectuated by a U.S. Marshal who personally delivered a summons and complaint to him while he was a passenger on a commercial flight in the airspace above Arkansas.
- Service on John D. MacArthur was attempted via service on the Arkansas Secretary of State under a state long-arm statute.
- Defendant Ronnie Smith filed a motion to quash service of summons, arguing he was not served 'within the territorial limits of the State of Arkansas.'
- Defendant John D. MacArthur filed a motion to quash service of summons, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction because he had not conducted business in Arkansas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a person on a commercial aircraft flying through the navigable airspace over a state within the 'territorial limits' of that state for the purpose of in-person service of process?
Opinions:
Majority - Henley, District Judge
Yes, a person on a commercial aircraft flying through the navigable airspace over a state is within the 'territorial limits' of that state for the purpose of in-person service of process. A state's sovereignty and jurisdiction are not limited to the ground but extend into the airspace above its territory. While the federal government has declared national sovereignty over the airspace for regulatory purposes under the Commerce Clause, this does not strip states of their jurisdictional boundaries for other legal matters. Precedent and state statutes governing crimes and torts committed in flight confirm that an aircraft and its passengers are within the state's borders when flying overhead. From a practical standpoint, there is no meaningful distinction between being served process on a plane, a train, or in a car while transiting through a state; the shorter duration of presence in the state is a difference of degree, not of principle.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that adapts traditional principles of personal jurisdiction to the realities of modern air travel. It establishes that a state's territorial boundaries extend vertically into the navigable airspace, confirming that physical presence for service of process does not require contact with the state's land. The ruling clarifies the relationship between federal preemption of air commerce regulation and the retained sovereign jurisdiction of states. This precedent solidifies the principle that transient presence within a state's borders, regardless of the mode of transportation or altitude, is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction through in-person service.
