These changes produced a fundamental shift in the Court’s views concerning the doctrine. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence addressing the doctrine of personal jurisdiction spans a period of American history that has witnessed a significant expansion of interstate and global commerce, as well as major technological advancements in transportation and communication. The Court has offered several justifications for the constitutional constraints on a court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over nonresident persons and corporations, including concerns about state sovereignty and fairness to defendants. And the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give federal district courts power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant to the same extent that a state court in which the federal district court is located may assert that power, meaning the same limits on personal jurisdiction generally apply to federal courts. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to limit the power of state courts to render judgments affecting the personal rights of defendants who do not reside within the state’s territory. One potential obstacle to such civil lawsuits is the doctrine of personal jurisdiction. persons, such injured persons may face various procedural challenges in obtaining judicial relief from a foreign company defendant in U.S. Although foreign companies may engage in actions or omissions that injure U.S. For example, a foreign company might manufacture in its home country a machine that another company later distributes in the United States, ultimately resulting in an injury to a U.S. Businesses that are incorporated in foreign countries and conduct a large portion of their operations outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States may nevertheless cause injury to U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |