And, finally, defendants have advanced no compelling argument for finding that litigating the cause in Oklahoma would serve the interstate judicial system, or that the shared interests of both states in advancing fundamental social policies would be better served by litigating in Oklahoma. In sum, we [conclude] that the Illinois court’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over the Cornelsens does not offend federal due process concerns. For [essentially] the same reasons, we also . . . conclude that the assertion of in personam jurisdiction comports with this state’s due process guaranty.


In rem jurisdiction is based on the presence of property within the state. It empowers state courts to determine rights in that property even if the persons whose rights are affected are outside the state’s in personam jurisdiction. For example, a state court’s decision regarding title to land within the state is said to bind the world. Even if a court has jurisdiction, it may be unable to decide the case because venue requirements have not been met.


Venue questions arise only after jurisdiction is established or assumed. In general, a court has venue if it is a territorially fair and convenient forum in which to hear the case. Venue requirements applicable to state courts typically are set by state statutes, which normally determine the county in which a case must be brought.


Trial court’s dismissal for lack of in personam jurisdiction reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings .