We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
RETHINKING PERSONAL JURISDICTION AFTER BAUMAN AND WALDEN.
- Authors
Parry, John T.
- Abstract
This Article, part of a symposium on personal jurisdiction, considers the impact of the Supreme Court's 2014 opinions in Daimler v. Bauman and Walden v. Fiore. The Article contends that, read together, the recent opinions reject the Court's disastrous 2011 Nicastro decision. Although that is a good result, the Court still has failed to develop a useful alternative to the faulty two-step minimum-contacts-plus-reasonableness analysis derived from the International Shoe decision. The remainder of the Article critiques the specifics of Bauman and Walden before suggesting a better path. With respect to Bauman's discussion of general jurisdiction, the Article finds fault with the new "at-home" test in several ways, including the striking disparity between the protections it gives to corporations and the vulnerability it creates for individuals. Walden is less significant. It pulls back on expansive uses of the Calder v. Jones effects test and more firmly integrates that analysis into the minimumcontacts approach, but its true failing is in its too easy acceptance of that traditional approach. The last Part of the Article develops an approach to personal jurisdiction that would link it more firmly with legislative jurisdiction, a result that several other commentators have also urged. Even if this approach would not lead to the broader personal jurisdiction doctrine that the Article envisages, the results would still be better than those produced by current doctrine. Finally, the Article comments on the possibility of altering personal jurisdiction for diversity cases by amending Rule 4 to allow nationwide service of process, which would have the effect of turning venue selection into a constitutional analysis, albeit one with little bite. The Article agrees that such change would be possible but wonders whether it is desirable for diversity cases in light of the forum shopping and disparities between state and federal courts that it would create. Better, the Article concludes, to have a personal jurisdiction doctrine that makes sense.
- Subjects
UNITED States; PERSONAL jurisdiction; DAIMLER AG v. Bauman; WALDEN v. Fiore (Supreme Court case); JUDICIAL opinions; INTERNATIONAL Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (Supreme Court case); PROCESS (Law); UNITED States. Supreme Court; J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
Lewis & Clark Law Review, 2015, Vol 19, Issue 3, p607
- ISSN
1557-6582
- Publication type
Article