Skip to main content
LIRA@BC Law

Abstract

This Article argues that the Court’s recent decisions have effectively revived Pennoyer’s focus on physical presence and status, at the expense of the fairness and contact considerations set forth in International Shoe, as the bases for asserting personal jurisdiction. Part II details the jurisdictional analysis under both Pennoyer and International Shoe. Part III discusses the evolution of personal jurisdiction doctrine under International Shoe. Part IV demonstrates that the Court’s recent decisions have revitalized Pennoyer’s territorially based regime, and consequently diminished the thrust of International Shoe.

Files

File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
bloom_personal_jurisdiction_A1b.pdf
6 Sep 2022
Public
521 kB

Metrics

Metadata

  • Subject
    • Civil Procedure

    • Courts

    • Jurisdiction

    • Law and Society

    • Litigation

  • Journal title
    • San Diego Law Review

  • Volume
    • 56

  • Issue
    • 3

  • Pagination
    • 581-614

  • Date submitted

    6 September 2022