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
Metadata
- Subject
Civil Procedure
Courts
Jurisdiction
Law and Society
Litigation
State and Local Government Law
- Journal title
San Diego Law Review
- Volume
56
- Issue
3
- Pagination
581-614
- Date submitted
6 September 2022