September 2021 Newsletter on Probate and Estate Litigation natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Personal jurisdiction is perhaps one of the most complicated areas in litigation. Each successive case since International Shoe Co. v. Washington, seems to create more new questions.
Chemerinsky: Despite SCOTUS ruling, questions of personal jurisdiction remain unsettled
Erwin Chemerinsky. Photo by Jim Block.
For the last two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently restricted the ability to sue out-of-state defendants without their consent. But in
The decision, handed down in March, is important in clarifying the law of personal jurisdiction, but it also raises many questions that will confront lower state and federal courts and ultimately need Supreme Court resolution.
Some background
Every first-year law student in civil procedure reads the famous case of
International Shoe v. State of Washington (1945). Before this case, the court long had ruled that due process limits the ability to sue an out-of-state defendant without its consent. In
The SCOTUS decision in
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth
Judicial District Court
1 is a decision that we believe will
alter the legal landscape in the defense of product liability
matters with respect to the personal jurisdiction defense. We have
reported on this case in prior posts (
seeThe Law of Personal Jurisdiction Is About to Be
Changed Again - What Life Science Companies Should Expect), and
now that a decision has been handed down by the SCOTUS, we would
like to share some of our thoughts on how we believe the decision
will impact the defense of life science companies in product
[9]
Turning back to the case at hand, how did Ford’s general activities in the forum states sufficiently “relate to” the plaintiffs’ claims at issue? In the majority’s view, the answer was quite simple: “Ford had systematically served a market in Montana and Minnesota for the very vehicles that the plaintiffs alleged malfunctioned and injured them in those states.”
[10] Thus, just like Volkswagen and Daimler in past landmark cases, Ford was subject to personal jurisdiction for claims brought against them by forum residents based on accidents occurring within the forum.
Fairness and “Reciprocal Obligations”
Throughout the Court’s majority opinion, Justice Kagan directly and indirectly highlighted the extent of Ford’s activities in the forum states to demonstrate that permitting jurisdiction “treats Ford fairly.”