Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton · ¶22

Coney Island turns next to this Court's decision in Insur ance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694 (1982). There, we explained that a defendant seeking to dispute personal jurisdiction is “always free to ignore the judicial proceedings, risk a default judgment, and then challenge that judgment . . . in a collateral proceeding.” Id., at 706. Citing this sentence, Coney Island argues that defendants need not comply with time limits when alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction. But Insurance Corp. also recognized that the “expression of legal rights is often subject to certain procedural rules,” and “the failure to enter a timely objection” may result in the loss of a legal right. Id., at 705. Thus, Insurance Corp. undermines Coney Island's plea for no time limits.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.