In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
False Claims Act Insights - Railroaded! How to Approach the Twin Tracks of Parallel Proceedings
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 334: Listen and Learn -- Standards of Review (Con Law)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 160: Listen and Learn -- Standards of Review (Con Law)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 295: Listen and Learn -- Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 117: Listen and Learn -- Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law)
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Day 11 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-the Fair Process Doctrine
Webinar: Investigating and Resolving Sexual Assaults on Campus
Former Solicitor General Ted Olson Discusses 2013's Biggest Supreme Court Case—His.
The court granted the third-party defendant’s first motion to dismiss for lack of general jurisdiction but permitted the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery. After the close of jurisdictional discovery, the...more
Over the past several years, many federal courts have weighed in on whether a key Supreme Court decision requires them to dismiss non-resident opt-in plaintiffs in federal wage and hour collective actions, and there is now...more
Under current United States Supreme Court precedent, for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a manufacturer like Ford, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the court has either general or specific jurisdiction....more
Lower courts’ inability or refusal to confine cases to their proper fora compels the Supreme Court to spend precious docket space restating the rules governing personal jurisdiction. The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth...more
The increasingly popular federal statute concerning cross-border judicial assistance, 28 U.S.C. § 1782, enables a District Court to order a “person” that “resides or is found” within its jurisdiction to produce evidence for...more
As we previously reported, courts continue to sift through the unsettled law left in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California. ...more
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), the Supreme Court held a state court did not have specific jurisdiction in a mass tort action over the non-resident defendant as to 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
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, et al., No. 16-466 (U.S. June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the narrow circumstances under which specific jurisdiction will...more
Nation’s highest court reverses California Supreme Court decision that extended the jurisdictional reach of state courts. In the 2016 case Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (Anderson), the California Supreme Court...more
In a decisive 8-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a theory of specific jurisdiction that would allow a state court to assert specific jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs whose claims were not...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently tightened the reins when it comes to state courts’ exercise of case-based, specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state companies. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of...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
On June 19, the United States Supreme reaffirmed some basic principles of personal jurisdiction in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 528 U.S. __ (2017). In a bloody-good 8-1 decision (with only...more
On June 19th, the Supreme Court issued a decision that could have important consequences for multi-state class actions. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, the Court addressed the question whether a California...more
Product manufacturers routinely hauled into court in far away, inconvenient jurisdictions can breathe a little easier with the Supreme Court’s decision this week in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California. ...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court placed new limits on where lawsuits may be filed. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16–466 (June 19, 2017), the justices, in an eight – one decision,...more
On June 19, 2017, in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the Supreme Court held, by a vote of 8 to 1, that California courts lack specific jurisdiction to entertain a nonresident’s claims that are...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