In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has issued two opinions, in the cases of BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cnty., analyzing and reaffirming...more
I. Why It Matters - Until recently, personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants had been expanding significantly in scope through the reliance on tenuous corporate contacts or business conducted by a defendant in a...more
BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrell redefined the contours of a court’s jurisdictional reach by effectively subjecting corporations to general personal jurisdiction only in those states where they are incorporated or have their...more
A Review of 2017 Personal Jurisdiction Decisions - In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California continued the trend that began in...more
The venue of a lawsuit can be a crucial, even dispositive, decision in managing the strategy of a successful outcome in an IP dispute. Defending a lawsuit on your home turf is often easier than in a distant state – defendants...more
With its recent opinion in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the strong position that it took in Daimler AG v. Bauman with respect to general jurisdiction, leaving no doubt that a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has been steadfast in cabining the authority of state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants in civil cases. In 2017, the Court has continued this trend on...more
As its term drew to a close, the Supreme Court handed down its latest decision on personal jurisdiction in a case entitled Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty. Over the last six years, the...more
In its two recent 8–1 decisions, BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the U.S. Supreme Court doubled down on its 2014 landmark personal jurisdiction ruling in Daimler AG v....more
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process restricts a state court’s power to exercise “general” (i.e. all-purpose) jurisdiction to hear any and all claims against a defendant. General jurisdiction exists only...more
This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two matters in which it unequivocally held that state courts’ ability to assert personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants is limited under both general and specific...more
This past Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court drastically changed the landscape of mass tort litigation. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the Court found that the State of California did not have...more
On May 30, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell. Among other things, the case analyzed and reaffirmed the grounds for a company to be sued other than in its home...more
In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, No. 16-466, slip op. (U.S., June 19, 2017), the United States Supreme Court provided further clarification regarding the exercise of personal jurisdiction over...more
The 2016–2017 U.S. Supreme Court term will be remembered for decisions on splashier subjects, but for the business community, the personal-jurisdiction decisions in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v....more
On Monday, June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court clarified the limits of specific personal jurisdiction in state courts, holding that a connection between a defendant’s contacts with the forum and the claims at issue remains...more
It seems like it happens every spring: Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a state court’s expansive view of personal jurisdiction. In BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, the Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell (BNSF), No. 16-405, 2017 WL 2322834, (U.S. May 30, 2017) demonstrates why personal jurisdiction should be examined in response to every lawsuit filed against a...more
Plaintiffs seeking damages typically choose to file suit in a state where the dispute or injury occurred, or in the state where the plaintiffs reside. Yet sometimes, plaintiffs may pick a state that has no such connection to...more
On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporations in a personal jurisdiction decision, limiting the number of places where they can be sued. In BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, an 8-1 decision authored by...more
Last week, in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. ___, No. 16-405, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court and concluded that BNSF Railway was not subject to general jurisdiction in Montana to answer for...more
The availability of any forum aside from a defendant's state of incorporation or principal place of business will require a plaintiff to carefully consider the likelihood of obtaining specific jurisdiction because there is...more
Almost any business whose products or services reach customers in multiple states knows that there are some jurisdictions thought to be friendlier to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ lawyers know about those jurisdictions too, and...more
On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down yet another personal jurisdiction opinion emphasizing clear rules as to when out-of-state defendants may be haled into court. While the decision in BNSF Railway Co. v....more
Fundamental fairness requires that before a company doing business in several states is sued in a particular state that it has substantial contacts with that state. Merely being present in that state will not satisfy the...more