On Jan. 14, the United States Supreme Court directly addressed the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over corporations for only the fourth time in its history. It has, of course, long been the law that a corporation’s contacts with the forum state must be “continuous and systematic” to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction, Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984), and for years courts have interpreted this to mean that if a corporation did enough business in a state, it eventually would be subject to general jurisdiction there.
In Daimler v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), the court acknowledged the old rule of Helicopteros, but then significantly limited that rule by instructing that, for general jurisdiction to be asserted, constitutional due process requires that corporations’ contacts must be “so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum state”—a standard typically met only in a corporation’s state of incorporation or principal place of business. Bauman thus represents a major departure from the “doing business” general jurisdiction standard that has been applied by lower courts for decades, and sharply limits where corporations may be sued for claims unrelated to their activities in a state.
This content has been archived.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]
