General Jurisdiction After Daimler

In Daimler AG v. Bauman and Goodyear v. Brown, the Supreme Court held that corporations do not subject themselves to general–or “all purpose”–jurisdiction simply by conducting continuous business in a state. Instead, a corporation’s contacts with a state are only sufficient for general jurisdiction if they are so “constant and pervasive” as to render the corporation “essentially at home.” But Daimler and Goodyear left open some important questions about general jurisdiction–for example, whether a corporation that registers to do business and appoints an agent for service of process in a state consents to general jurisdiction there.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is poised to decide that question

Discover more from PrawfsBlawg

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading