Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
General Jurisdiction After <i>Daimler AG v. Bauman</i>
As noted last month, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), profoundly altered the law of personal jurisdiction when it held that a corporate defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction (jurisdiction over suits unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum) only where the corporation may fairly be “regarded as at home.” This generally means that the company will only be subject to general jurisdiction in its state of incorporation or where it has its principal place of business. Id. at 760-61 & n.19. Thus, it appeared that Daimler did away with the exercise of general jurisdiction based only on a corporation's maintenance of an office in the forum, or the fact that it was “doing business” there. Id. at 761-62 & n.20. But, did it?
'At Home' Jurisdiction Affirmed: Daimler
As discussed in Part One of this article, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously concluded in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011), that “stream of commerce” analysis ' which is typically used as a basis for specific jurisdiction ' was insufficient to support general, “all-purpose” jurisdiction over a suit unrelated to the defendants' forum contacts. Goodyear's formulation of the governing standard strongly suggested that general jurisdiction should not extend beyond a corporate defendant's state of incorporation, principal place of business, and (in limited circumstances) some equivalent forum where a corporation may truly be regarded as “at home.” That sort of narrow standard is inherently inconsistent with a regime, long embraced by lower courts, in which a defendant's nationwide sales can result in the exercise of general jurisdiction in all 50 states.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.