Civil Procedure Commons^™

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. V. Superior Court Of California, San Francisco County: An Exploration Of The "Arises Out Of" Prong In Personal Jurisdiction, Loden Walker

Mississippi College Law Review

The concept of personal jurisdiction in its modern context has existed since the early 1900s. In time, courts have vetted the idea that an individual, company, or legal entity may be brought under the jurisdiction of a state or federal court by reason of its particular contacts with the jurisdiction. In its creation, the Supreme Court of the United States added the requirement that the contact must "arise out of or relate to" the forum state. But dismally, the Court has provided very little on how to apply and operate the "arise out of" prong. As a result, both federal …

Rule 4 And Personal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

Notre Dame Law Review

State-court personal jurisdiction is regulated intensely by the Fourteenth Amend-ment’s Due Process Clause, which the Court has famously used to tie state-court personal jurisdiction to state borders. Although the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to federal courts, the prevailing wisdom is that federal courts nevertheless are largely confined to the same personal-jurisdiction limits as state courts because of Rule 4(k), which provides that service “establishes personal jurisdiction” in federal court only upon specified conditions, including when the state courts would have personal jurisdiction. Some commentators have further argued that Rule 4(k) sets a limit on federal-court personal jurisdiction independent of service …

Running On Empty: Ford V. Montana And The Folly Of Minimum Contacts, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

Jurisdictional contests are in disarray. Criticisms date back to the issuance of International Shoe Co. v. Washington but the breakdown may be best illustrated in two recent Supreme Court opinions, the first rejecting California’s “sliding scale” that mixes general and specific contacts, the second using the discredited sliding scale to hold Ford amenable in states where accidents occurred.

California’s sliding scale is one variety of the contacts-relatedness tests, used in lower courts to have general contacts bolster weaker specific contacts. Some states—Montana and Minnesota for example—use the opposite extreme requiring a causal connection in defendant’s forum contacts, often using foreseeability …

The Cost Of Doing Business? Corporate Registration As Valid Consent To General Personal Jurisdiction, Matthew D. Kaminer

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Every state has a statute that requires out-of-state corporations to register with a designated official before doing business there, but courts disagree on what impact, if any, those statutes can or should have on personal jurisdiction doctrine. A minority of states interpret compliance with their registration statutes as the company’s consent to general personal jurisdiction, meaning it can be sued on any cause of action there, even those unrelated to the company’s conduct in that state. The United States Supreme Court upheld this “consent by registration” theory over 100 years ago, but since then has manifested a sea change in …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Conflicts Revolution In Personal Jurisdiction, Jesse M. Cross

Faculty Publications

It is widely acknowledged that, from roughly 1940 to 1970, a revolution occurred in Conflicts of Law. Referred to as the “Conflicts revolution,” this movement remade nearly every legal test in the field. According to conventional wisdom, this revolution rejected the same idea in each instance: namely, that Conflicts tests should be grounded in a theory of sovereignty. Instead, the argument goes, it pivoted the field to pragmatic tests that focus on practicality, fairness, and convenience.

As this Article explains, this conventional wisdom is incorrect. It misunderstands the intellectual revolution that remade the field, and it has generated needless confusion …

Machine Learning And The New Civil Procedure, Zoe Niesel

Faculty Articles

There is an increasing emphasis in the legal academy, the media, and the popular consciousness on how artificial intelligence and machine learning will change the foundations of legal practice. In concert with these discussions, a critical question needs to be explored-As computer programming learns to adjust itself without explicit human involvement, does machine learning impact the procedural practice of law? Civil procedure, while sensitive to technology, has been slow to adapt to change. As such, this Article will explore the impact that machine learning will have on procedural jurisprudence in two significant areas-service of process and personal jurisdiction.

The Article …

An Active Learning Approach To Teaching Tough Topics: Personal Jurisdiction As An Example, Cynthia M. Ho

Cynthia M Ho

No abstract provided.

Plaintiff Personal Jurisdiction And Venue Transfer, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Personal Jurisdiction And Aggregation, Scott Dodson

Northwestern University Law Review

Aggregation—the ability to join parties or claims in a federal civil lawsuit—has usually been governed by subject matter jurisdiction, claim and issue preclusion, and the joinder rules. These doctrines have tended to favor aggregation for its efficiency, consistency, and predictability. Yet aggregation is suddenly under attack from a new threat, one that has little to do with aggregation directly: personal jurisdiction. In this Article, I chronicle how a recent restrictive turn in personal jurisdiction—seen in modern cases narrowing general jurisdiction and October Term 2016’s blockbuster case Bristol-Myers Squibb—threatens the salutary benefits of aggregation across a number of areas, including …

Personal Jurisdiction And The Web, Joseph S. Burns, Richard A. Bales

Maine Law Review

Courts have struggled in determining precisely when a defendant should be subject to suit in a particular forum based on his or her Web activity. Although most jurisdictions have applied some form of the “minimum contacts” test, the test has been applied inconsistently. A new standard is needed to resolve personal jurisdiction disputes arising out of Web activity. This Article examines the ways in which modern courts have attempted to resolve personal jurisdiction issues based on Web activity, as well as the inconsistencies that have resulted from the inherent difficulty in conceptualizing the Web.

Recent Developments In Aviation Law, Justin V. Lee

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

No abstract provided.

Teaching And Learning Personal Jurisdiction After The Stealth Revolution, Deborah Challener

Journal Articles

In this Response [to Professor Michael Hoffheimer’s article The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction], Professor Challener points out one additional cost of the stealth revolution: the substantially increased difficulty of teaching and learning the law of personal jurisdiction which, in turn, erodes law students’ confidence in the Supreme Court as an institution.

Jurisdiction In The Trump Era, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Personal Jurisdiction And Aliens, Scott Dodson, William Dodge

Scott Dodson

Personal Jurisdiction And Aggregation, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Emerging From Daimler's Shadow: Registration Statutes As A Means To General Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations, Nicholas D'Angelo

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues for the increased exercise of general jurisdiction based on registration statutes. Carefully drafted state statutes, explicitly stating that corporations registering to do business in a state thereby consent to general jurisdiction, not only solve the consequences of Daimler, but also fully comport with traditional values of fairness.

Part I outlines the jurisprudential history related to general jurisdiction. Section A begins with the concept of territoriality introduced in Pennoyer and the minimum contacts analysis in International Shoe, then discusses the modern doctrine in Perkins, Helicopteros, and Goodyear, culminating with Daimler. Section …

Of Carrots And Sticks: General Jurisdiction And Genuine Consent, Craig Sanders

Northwestern University Law Review

The United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman changed how the courts will determine whether companies should be subject to general personal jurisdiction. In 1945, Pennoyer v. Neff’s geographical fixation gave way to International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which provided a test for courts to determine whether corporations had sufficient contact with a forum to meet the bar for personal jurisdiction there. Specific jurisdiction requires “minimum contacts,” provided the action is satisfactorily related to the forum. However, to be subject to general jurisdiction, a corporation must possess more than just “minimum contacts,” and claimants …

Holding Supporters Of Terrorism Accountable: The Exercise Of General Jurisdiction Over The Pa And Plo In A Post-Daimler Framework, Mark D. Christopher

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Attaching Domestic Assets To Remedy High Seas Pollution: Rule B And Marine Debris, Jonathan M. Gutoff

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

When Is It Necessary For Corporations To Be Essentially At Home: An Exploration Of Exceptional Cases, Pricilla Heinz

Law Student Publications

This comment examines the current state of the law surrounding the exercise of general jurisdiction and forecasts the circumstances under which the Supreme Court is likely to clarify its recent decisions. Its purpose is to explore the principles announced in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown and Daimler AG v. Bauman and consider whether the due process rationales offered in the past coincide with the new essentially at home standard imposed for general jurisdiction. Moreover, this comment analyzes the reactions of the lower courts in the wake of these decisions and predicts where the Supreme Court is headed in …

The Dormant Commerce Clause As A Limit On Personal Jurisdiction, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

For over 70 years, the Due Process Clause has defined the law of personal jurisdiction. This makes sense, because being forced to stand trial in a far-off state will sometimes be fundamentally unfair. What does not make sense, however, is the Dormant Commerce Clause’s apparent irrelevance to personal jurisdiction. The Dormant Commerce Clause addresses state laws affecting interstate commerce, and a plaintiff’s choice of forum is often a commercially driven choice between different state courts. So why isn’t the Dormant Commerce Clause part of personal jurisdiction doctrine?

This Article makes the case for its relevance, and demonstrates how the Dormant …

The Other Side Of The Rabbit Hole: Reconciling Recent Supreme Court Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence With Jurisdiction To Terminate Parental Rights, Joan M. Shaughnessy

Joan M. Shaughnessy

This Essay contrasts the jurisdictional regime followed in termination of parental rights and other child custody cases with the regime that has dominated recent Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases. Jurisdiction in child custody cases has long been based upon the connection of the child, not the defendant parent, to the jurisdiction. Recent Supreme Court cases, on the other hand, have focused nearly exclusively on the defendant’s connection to the forum state. This Essay argues that the Supreme Court cases betray a failure of the Court to provide a consistent constitutional justification for the jurisdictional limitations it has imposed. The Essay …

Making Sense Of Sovereignty: A Historical Understanding Of Personal Jurisdiction From Pennoyer To Nicastro, Kyle Voils

Northwestern University Law Review

How can we make sense of sovereignty’s role in Supreme Court personal jurisdiction doctrine? The Supreme Court has once again raised this question with its plurality decision in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, which endorsed a personal jurisdiction doctrine based on sovereign authority of forum states. Scholarly reaction to Nicastro has largely been negative, as scholars argue both that, descriptively, sovereignty considerations have long not played a role in personal jurisdiction, and that, normatively, such considerations ought not play a role in personal jurisdiction. This Note concerns only the former contention, that sovereignty’s role in personal jurisdiction largely …

An Active Learning Approach To Teaching Tough Topics: Personal Jurisdiction As An Example, Cynthia M. Ho

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction: A Doctrinal Labyrinth With No Exit, Simona Grossi

Akron Law Review

My goal is not to categorize, critique, or refine existing doctrine, but to challenge the idea that the Supreme Court’s case-by-case approach to personal jurisdiction represents an arc of progress. In my view, all too often the Court’s apparent refinements operate as detours from the fundamental principles at stake. The result is a clutter of doctrinal tests that is inconsistent with principle and confuses more than it informs. In Part II, I briefly explore the traditional bases of jurisdiction and the Court’s elaboration of the minimum contacts test in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington. 9 Here, I show …

New Limits On General Personal Jurisdiction: Examining The Retroactive Application Of Daimler In Long-Pending Cases, Brooke A. Weedon

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Fulbright & Jaworski Llp V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 5, Chelsea Lancaster

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) “a general jurisdiction inquiry calls for an appraisal of a defendant’s activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide”; and (2) “an out-of-state law firm that is solicited by a Nevada client to represent the client on an out-of-state matter does not subject itself to [specific] personal jurisdiction in Nevada simply by virtue of agreeing to represent the client.” Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that “[p]urposeful availment requires that the cause of action arise from the consequences in the forum state of the defendant’s activities.”

Reflections On Judicial Jurisdiction In International Cases, Gary B. Born

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.