In Burnham v. Superior Court of California, the United States Supreme Court considered the continued vitality of transient jurisdiction. Although the Court unanimously held that the defendant was subject to state court jurisdiction, it failed to agree on the issue of transient jurisdiction, issuing three plurality opinions. This Note examines Burnham and concludes that the Court should invalidate transient jurisdiction as a violation of due process rights. It proposes that the Court evaluate all state court assertions of jurisdiction against a minimum contacts standard
Judgments can be divided into two classes: those that are valid and those that are void. Furthermore...
Defendant, a resident of Utah, sued petitioner, a resident of California, to recover construction co...
Commentators frequently claim that there is no single, coherent doctrine of extra-territorial person...
This Article challenges the conventional scholarly wisdom and contends that transient jurisdiction f...
This Casenote questions the Pavlovich court’s holding. More specifically, it argues that the exercis...
The purpose of this Article is to locate the sources of jurisdictional doctrine. A coherent theory o...
The Cornelison court, following the bold and liberal traditions of the California Supreme Court, rej...
The advance sheets of the Northwestern Reporter for January 29th, 1915, contain two cases in which a...
The ability of a California court to assert jurisdiction over business enterprises currently depends...
Although the usually proclaimed goals of the United States legal system are fair play and justice, ...
A plaintiff from Maine sues an insurance company, incorporated in Maine and having its principal pla...
Litigants have long tried to manufacture a final, appealable decision by voluntarily dismissing thei...
The Supreme Court of the United States granted plaintiff\u27s petition for certiorari to review a de...
In 1984, Hollywood star Shirley Jones convinced the Supreme Court to adopt an effects-based test for...
On March 6th, 1917, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of McDonald v. Mabee, reve...
Judgments can be divided into two classes: those that are valid and those that are void. Furthermore...
Defendant, a resident of Utah, sued petitioner, a resident of California, to recover construction co...
Commentators frequently claim that there is no single, coherent doctrine of extra-territorial person...
This Article challenges the conventional scholarly wisdom and contends that transient jurisdiction f...
This Casenote questions the Pavlovich court’s holding. More specifically, it argues that the exercis...
The purpose of this Article is to locate the sources of jurisdictional doctrine. A coherent theory o...
The Cornelison court, following the bold and liberal traditions of the California Supreme Court, rej...
The advance sheets of the Northwestern Reporter for January 29th, 1915, contain two cases in which a...
The ability of a California court to assert jurisdiction over business enterprises currently depends...
Although the usually proclaimed goals of the United States legal system are fair play and justice, ...
A plaintiff from Maine sues an insurance company, incorporated in Maine and having its principal pla...
Litigants have long tried to manufacture a final, appealable decision by voluntarily dismissing thei...
The Supreme Court of the United States granted plaintiff\u27s petition for certiorari to review a de...
In 1984, Hollywood star Shirley Jones convinced the Supreme Court to adopt an effects-based test for...
On March 6th, 1917, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of McDonald v. Mabee, reve...
Judgments can be divided into two classes: those that are valid and those that are void. Furthermore...
Defendant, a resident of Utah, sued petitioner, a resident of California, to recover construction co...
Commentators frequently claim that there is no single, coherent doctrine of extra-territorial person...