Law Commons^™

Resoling International Shoe, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown and Daimler AG v. Bauman sharply restricted general jurisdiction over corporations, limiting it to a corporation’s (1) state of incorporation, (2) state of principal place of business, or (3) another state where the corporation is “essentially at home.” The Court analogized the first two categories to an individual’s domicile. The Court made clear that the third category is very small, leading Justice Sotomayor, in her opinion concurring in the judgment, to charge that the Court had made many corporations “too big for general jurisdiction.” It is noteworthy that although the Court used the …

Death To Immunity From Service Of Process Doctrine!, John Martinez

John Martinez

The immunity from service of process doctrine provides that a nonresident cannot be served while going to, attending, and leaving an ongoing judicial proceeding. However, the doctrine evolved while "tag" jurisdiction was in vogue, whereby mere presence in the forum state sufficed, and the nonresident only had to be "tagged" with service to confer jurisdiction on the forum state. This article suggests that modern "minimum contacts" territorial jurisdiction theory more adequately addresses the concerns of efficiency of judicial proceedings and fairness to nonresidents than the immunity from service of process doctrine. The article proposes that the immunity from service of …

Death To Immunity From Service Of Process Doctrine!, John Martinez

John Martinez

Death to Immunity From Service of Process Doctrine!

By John Martinez, Professor of Law

S.J. Quinney College of Law

at the University of Utah

ABSTRACT

The immunity from service of process doctrine provides that a nonresident cannot be served while going to, attending, and leaving an ongoing judicial proceeding. However, the doctrine evolved while "tag" jurisdiction was in vogue, whereby mere presence in the forum state sufficed, and the nonresident only had to be "tagged" with service to confer jurisdiction on the forum state. This article suggests that modern "minimum contacts" territorial jurisdiction theory more adequately addresses the concerns of …

"Defendant Veto" Or "Totality Of The Circumstances?": It's Time For The Supreme Court To Straighten Out The Personal Jurisdiction Standard Once Again, Robert J. Condlin

Robert J. Condlin

Commentators frequently claim that there is no single, coherent doctrine of extra-territorial personal jurisdiction, and, unfortunately, they are correct. The International Shoe case, commonly (but inaccurately) thought of as the wellspring of the modern form of the doctrine, announced a relatively straightforward, two-factor, four-permutation test that worked well for resolving most cases. In the nearly sixty-year period following Shoe, however, as the Supreme Court expanded and refined the standard, what was once straightforward and uncomplicated became serendipitous and convoluted. Two general, and generally incompatible, versions of the doctrine competed for dominance. The first, what might best be described as a …

Sovereignty, Not Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident, Alien Defendants, Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The Due Process Clause with its focus on a defendant's liberty interest has become the key, if not only, limitation on a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. This due process jurisdictional limitation is universally assumed to apply with equal force to alien defendants as to domestic defendants. With few exceptions, scholars do not distinguish between the two. Neither do the courts. Countless cases assume that foreigners have all the rights of United States citizens to object to extraterritorial assertions of personal jurisdiction.

But is this assumption sound? This Article explores the uncritical assumption that the same due process considerations apply …

The Rush To The Goblin Market: The Blurring Of Quill'S Two Nexus Tests, H. Beau Baez Iii

Seattle University Law Review

Part II of this Article begins with a brief introduction to sales and use taxes in the United States. Although these taxes are complementary in nature, they are treated differently for constitutional purposes. This Part then examines the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause constraints on state taxation, which are animated by very different concerns. Next, this Part explores footnote eight in Quill to dispel the notion that Quill established a facts-and-circumstances test. The section concludes by discussing the problems lower courts have had in applying the Quill nexus tests. The primary problem encountered by the lower courts, exemplified by …

"Defendant Veto" Or "Totality Of The Circumstances?": It's Time For The Supreme Court To Straighten Out The Personal Jurisdiction Standard Once Again, Robert J. Condlin

Faculty Scholarship

Commentators frequently claim that there is no single, coherent doctrine of extra-territorial personal jurisdiction, and, unfortunately, they are correct. The International Shoe case, commonly (but inaccurately) thought of as the wellspring of the modern form of the doctrine, announced a relatively straightforward, two-factor, four-permutation test that worked well for resolving most cases. In the nearly sixty-year period following Shoe, however, as the Supreme Court expanded and refined the standard, what was once straightforward and uncomplicated became serendipitous and convoluted. Two general, and generally incompatible, versions of the doctrine competed for dominance. The first, what might best be described as …