Call 855-808-4530 or email Gro[email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), announced a sweeping change to the law of personal jurisdiction. The Daimler Court 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,” which is generally limited to the defendant’s state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. Id. at 760-61 & n.19. In announcing this strict standard, the Daimler Court rejected the rule, long applied by many lower courts, permitting the exercise of general jurisdiction in any forum where a corporate defendant maintained an office or was otherwise “doing business.” Id. at 761-62 & n.20.
*May exclude premium content
By Steven P. Benenson
In the past several years, plaintiffs’ firms have threatened or brought class actions against different companies under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). Here's what you need to know.
By Mitch Warnock
When you take a catastrophic injury case involving paralysis, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the problems and pitfalls. In this article, the author explores, from personal experience, the different types of future expenses the client can expect to incur.
By Shannon E. McClure and Whitney Mayer
The FDA’s recent approval of 23andMe’s direct-to-consumer genetic test to identify genes associated with 10 common diseases and disorders could result in a widespread expansion of patients armed with individualized health information. This expansion of genetic information in the hands of consumers potentially impacts regulatory and litigation issues for pharmaceutical companies.
Discussion of major rulings out of Texas and California.