AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 298: Listen and Learn -- The Dormant Commerce Clause
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 108: Listen and Learn -- The Commerce Clause
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
The test for personal jurisdiction, which asks whether a defendant can be compelled to litigate in a particular state, has been extensively developed over the past several decades, and notably refined in the last fifteen...more
The US Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co holding that a Pennsylvania statute requiring corporations to "consent" to suit in Pennsylvania courts in order to register to do...more
On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749, that Norfolk Southern submitted to the state of Pennsylvania’s general jurisdiction (that is, being...more
Here at Foley, we routinely represent companies, whether manufacturers, distributors, service providers, or others that are, by necessity, registered to do business in most or all of the fifty states. For years, the U.S....more
Tag, You’re It! SCOTUS Ruling Against Norfolk Southern Extends Reach of Personal Jurisdiction Upon Corporate Defendants - A plurality of the United States Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that will likely permit...more
Late last month the Supreme Court of the United States opened the door to a potential sea change in personal jurisdiction over corporate entities. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the Court held that any...more
In its June 27, 2023, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporate defendant can be sued in Pennsylvania — regardless of whether the cause of action accrues in Pennsylvania or...more
The United States Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., finding Pennsylvania’s consent to jurisdiction by corporate registration unconstitutional in a 5-4...more
A recent (and surprising) ruling of the United States Supreme Court may allow businesses to be sued in states in which they have little connection. The United States Supreme Court, split 5-4 (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor...more
The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.. concerned the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania statute providing that registering to do business in the state constitutes a sufficient basis...more
Last week the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of state laws requiring businesses to consent to lawsuits in the state after registering with state authorities to conduct business there. In Mallory v. Norfolk...more
A recent United States Supreme Court decision on the scope of personal jurisdiction, i.e., a court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction over a particular party, could potentially have lasting impacts on the way states decide...more
Last week, amid its headline-generating decisions on affirmative action, religious accommodations in the workplace, and LGBTQ rights, the Supreme Court of the United States also issued its decision in Mallory v. Norfolk...more
On June 27, 2023, a fractured Supreme Court held in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. that a Pennsylvania law requiring out-of-state businesses to consent to the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania courts as a condition of...more
In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Robert Mallory (a Virginia resident) sued his former employer, Norfolk Southern (a Virginia-based railroad), over his alleged exposure to toxic chemicals while working for Norfolk...more
The US Supreme Court has held that companies can be forced, as a condition of doing business in a state, to agree to be sued in that state’s courts — even if the lawsuit has nothing to do with that state. In its June 27,...more
Can a state require a company, as a condition of doing business in the state, to consent to being sued there for any and all claims? In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 599 U.S. __ (2023), the Supreme Court concluded...more
The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue issued a bulletin announcing its view that the US Supreme Court’s sales and use tax decision in Wayfair v. South Dakota applies equally to corporate net income tax and authorizes the...more
Executive Summary - After Wayfair, unless Congress intervenes: The physical presence sales tax taxability standard is now gone - at least under circumstances like those presented by South Dakota’s situation. Income...more
Maine Revenue Services issued guidance, August 8, 2018, regarding remote sellers’ sales tax collection obligations in light of the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2018 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc....more
In its 5-4 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court gave states the authority to require online retailers to collect state sales taxes even if the retailer has no physical presence in a state. The decision...more
Just about every State in the U.S. imposes a “sales tax” on the retail sale of goods and services in their State. That sales tax is required to be collected and remitted by the seller of the goods or services; however, if the...more
Stand Your Ground! Substantial Nexus Lives After Wayfair - The U.S. Supreme Court decided in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. that the U.S. Constitution does not require a physical presence in a taxing state in order for...more
The US House Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, July 24 at 10:00 am EDT in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. According to a press release circulated July 19, the topic of the hearing will be...more