Abstract
In Graham v. Sayawa, the Utah Supreme Court held that federal and state constitutional requirements of due process prohibit the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over an absent resident defendant where the only notice of the action is by publication. Graham revitalized the traditional concepts of in rem and in personam for Utah notice purposes, despite the United States Supreme Court's abandonment of those classifications for due process analyses. In effect, Graham prohibits in personam judgments based on published process under rule 4(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedures and casts doubt on the constitutionality of notice by mail in Utah in personam actions.
Recommended Citation
Hand, Learned
(1982)
"Graham v. Sawaya: Utah's Notice Requirements
for In Personam Actions,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1982:
No.
3, Article 9.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1982/iss3/9