By the time the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank was 1 year old, the Federal Reporter was littered with the bones of its billion-dollar casualties. Daimler v. Bauman, handed down by the high court last January, has slain fewer giant cases. But it has the potential to scorch wide swathes through the case law, in ways both intended and unintended.
Daimler abolished the “doing business” test for general jurisdiction that had prevailed for nearly 70 years. Now, unless there’s a link between the injury and the forum, a business can only be sued “at home.” This cuts the number of states where a court can assert general jurisdiction over a major U.S. company from 50 to two: the place of incorporation and the main place of business (putting aside the vague possibility that a company might be “at home” in some third way). Even more consequentially, Daimler cuts the number of states where a court can establish general jurisdiction over a non-U.S. defendant to zero. As many commentators have noted, this is bound to put pressure on other forms of jurisdiction.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
