The Supreme Court, in a recent case, Daimler AG v. Bauman,1 undertook to separate, analytically and practically, the standards for specific and general jurisdiction. In doing so, the court gave prominence to a separate standard for general jurisdiction—the “at home” test—that could well change the way the courts allow suits against foreign corporations, even those with active subsidiaries in the United States.
When most lawyers think of the requirements for personal jurisdiction over defendants under the U.S. Constitution, they refer to the International Shoe case.2 That case dealt primarily with what is known as “specific jurisdiction”—that which is based on activities within the jurisdiction that relate to the basis for the lawsuit—and “sufficient contacts or ties” under the facts of the case to permit, in the words of the decision, “the state of the forum to make it reasonable and just, according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice, to permit the state to enforce the obligation which appellant has incurred there.”3
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
