De Facto Power as used for in personam jurisdiction

[heyday]

Burnham V. Superior Court 495 U.S. 604,618 (1990)

"Historically, the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant's person. Hence his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding on him. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 733. But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' "

http://supreme.justia.com/us/495/604/case.html

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/95/714/case.html

What is this "de facto power" they are speaking of here?

Does not the term "de facto" itself raise implication that legal grounds exist for a challenge to that jurisdiction?

[heyday]

It may be possible to apply to an appelate court to assume original jurisdiction and apply a writ of prohibition prohibiting a trial court from assuming a wrongful in personam jurisdiction.

The following Oklahoma case, while denying such an application, does not hold that such a remedy is in error...

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=47391

However, be advised that prohibition is an extraordinary writ, and therefore it is not to be presumed lightly. In fact, many courts hold that if a court holds subject matter jurisdiction then that court may determine its own in personam jurisdiction, to which any challenges must be made upon a direct appeal of the error.