The Supreme Court has significantly expanded the possible grounds for personal jurisdiction against corporations, upholding Pennsylvania’s statute requiring foreign businesses registered in the Commonwealth to consent to...more
In Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. ____ (Jan. 14, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that general or “all-purpose” jurisdiction can be exercised over foreign corporations only “when their affiliations with the State...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a much anticipated decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman that will not only reverberate through the legal world, but the auto world as well. Large corporations that do business across a wide...more
In Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 644 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014) (Ginsburg, J.), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a court may not exercise general personal jurisdiction over a non-U.S. corporation...more
On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman held that Argentinian plaintiffs could not sue a German car manufacturer in California for human rights violations allegedly committed in Argentina. The...more
On January 14, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965—a closely watched personal jurisdiction case. In an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg for eight Justices, the Court reversed the Ninth...more
This week marks the first Monday in October, which for Supreme Court watchers is a holiday: the start of a new term. While not everyone gets that excited about the new term, there are several cases that the Court intends to...more
On April 22, 2013, the Supreme Court granted review in another personal jurisdiction case: DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965 (cert. granted Apr. 22, 2013). The question presented in DaimlerChrysler is “whether it...more