Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Wuchter v. Pizzutti

Supreme Court of the United States · 1928 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDue ProcessService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionFourteenth Amendmentdue processnonresident motorist statutesubstituted service

Facts

Wuchter, a Pennsylvania resident, allegedly caused an automobile collision on a New Jersey highway that damaged Pizzutti's wagon and injured Pizzutti and his horses. Pizzutti sued Wuchter in New Jersey and served process under Chapter 232 of the New Jersey Laws of 1924 by leaving the summons with the Secretary of State. The statute did not require that notice of that service be mailed or otherwise communicated to the nonresident defendant. Although Wuchter in fact received personal notice in Pennsylvania of the proposed execution, he did not appear, and final judgment was entered against him.

Issue

Does a state statute authorizing service of process on a nonresident motorist by serving a state official satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment when the statute contains no provision requiring notice of that service to be communicated to the defendant? Can actual notice given outside the statute cure that statutory defect?

Rule

A statute that treats a nonresident motorist's use of the state's highways as consent to service on a state official is consistent with due process only if the statute itself makes reasonable provision for communication of notice to the defendant so that there is a reasonable probability he will receive actual notice. Actual notice not required by the statute cannot supply the statute's constitutional validity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Olivia Mercer, an Ohio resident, allegedly caused a collision while driving through Vermont. A Vermont statute provides that any nonresident who uses Vermont highways appoints the state transportation commissioner as agent for service in accident suits, and it requires the plaintiff to list the defendant’s mailing address so the commissioner must immediately send notice of the service by registered mail to that address.

If Olivia challenges personal jurisdiction on due process grounds, how should a court rule on the constitutionality of the statutory service scheme?

Explanation. A state may treat a nonresident motorist’s use of its highways as the equivalent of appointing a state official to receive process in suits arising from that use. But due process requires that the statute itself make reasonable provision for communication of notice to the defendant so there is a reasonable probability of actual notice. Here, the statute requires the defendant’s address and mailing by the official, which satisfies the rule derived from the majority opinion.