Summary of STATE EX R EL. SIVNKSTY v. DUFFIELD

Facts: While incarcerated on criminal charges in a foreign state, Sivnksty (D) was served with process in a civil action and claimed immunity from such service.

Issue: Is a person confined in jail on a criminal charge immune from process in a civil action?

Rule: Nonresidents confined in jail on criminal charges are not immune from service of process for civil actions.

Analysis: The majority believe that Sivnksty’s (D) presence in the state removes him from the immunity protections.  Immunity is designed to protect courts and nonculpable persons from the burdens associated with the threat of service of process upon a non resident.

Dissent: (Lovins) Sivnksty’s presence in the county became involuntary when he was confined to jail. This could lead to a widespread abuse of judicial process.