Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBorchers, Patrick J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-19T16:20:15Z
dc.date.available2014-12-19T16:20:15Z
dc.date.issued2014en_US
dc.identifier.citationPatrick J. Borchers, The Twilight of the Minimum Contacts Test, 11 Seton Hall Cir. Rev. 1 (2014).en_US
dc.identifier.issn1942-518Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1942-5171en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/65352
dc.description.abstractThe minimum contacts test has set the limits on the long-arm jurisdictional reach of U.S. courts since 1945. Although the International Shoe case that ushered in the test is routinely hailed as having created a fairer and more flexible jurisdictional regime than the "implied consent" rubric that preceded it, whether this is actually so is now open to serious question. In a rash of four decisions from 2011 to 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that attempted exercises of long-arm jurisdiction were unconstitutional.|While the results in three of the four cases were utterly predictable, those opinions contain language that could proved to highly constrictive of the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts. In the one case in which the decision was not predictable, the Court splintered badly and failed to produce a majority decision. U.S jurisdictional law now contains two notable and arguably new features. One is that the need of the plaintiff to have access to at least one reasonable forum is not part of the jurisdictional calculus. The other is that jurisdiction over corporations based on activity unrelated to the operative events of the lawsuit now appears to be limited to the corporation's principal place of business and state of incorporation, with few or any forums beyond that being available.|As a result, minimum contacts as a test of fairness rooted in the Due Process Clause is in its twilight. As a verbal formulation, minimum contacts is likely to endure. But it now produces results in jurisdictional cases that are as constricted as those of the pre-International Shoe implied consent regime. This article argues that to return the minimum contacts test to its fairness origins, courts at a minimum must take into account the plaintiff's need to have access to a reasonable forum.en_US
dc.language.isoeng_USen_US
dc.titleTwilight of the minimum contacts testen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright (c) 2014 Patrick J. Borchersen_US
dc.description.volume11en_US
dc.title.workSeton Hall Circuit Reviewen_US
dc.description.pages1-39en_US
dc.subject.fastCivil procedureen_US
dc.subject.fastJurisdictionen_US
dc.url.fasthttp://id.worldcat.org/fast/00862585en_US
dc.url.fasthttp://id.worldcat.org/fast/00985026en_US
dc.date.year2014en_US
dc.date.monthFallen_US
dc.description.issue1en_US
dc.program.unitSchool of Lawen_US
dc.program.unitWerner Institute for Negotiation and Dispute Resolutionen_US
dc.url.link3http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2540306en_US
dc.url.link1https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/shcirc11&page=1&collection=journalsen_US
dc.contributor.cuauthorBorchers, Patrick J.en_US
dc.identifier.viafhttp://viaf.org/viaf/165068140en_US
dc.identifier.isnihttp://isni.org/isni/000000011720119X
dc.identifier.wcihttp://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n96029505/en_US
dc.identifier.ssrnhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=378743en_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6187-7522


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record