The Extensive Approach for Specific Jurisdiction in the United State Civil Procedure
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In March, 2021, the United States Supreme Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court decided on specific jurisdiction for two cases against Ford Motor, a world-wide automobile company, being sued in Montana and Minnesota where Ford’s used cars caused death to a Montana resident and inflicted personal injury to a Minnesota resident. Ford argued that courts in Montana and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over Ford because its vehicles involved in the accidents and injured non-residents of these states were not designed, manufactured, or sold directly by Ford in those States even if the accidents occurred in those states. The Court and Ford relied on a principle of specific jurisdiction: “The plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” For the first time, the Court suggested two tests for specific jurisdiction from: one is a causation test from the first phrase “arise out of,” and the other is a relation test from the second phrase “relate to,” meaning “some relationship without a causal showing.” Ford argued that courts in Montana and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over Ford since its vehicles involved in the accidents and injured non-residents of these states were not designed, manufactured, or sold directly by Ford in those States even if the accidents occurred in those states. However, the Court approved specific jurisdiction of Montana and Minnesota, by rejecting Ford’s causation-only approach, instead by applying the new relationship test. This paper overviews rules of personal jurisdiction including general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction, and observes discussions in this recent Ford case.
Abstract
In March, 2021, the United States Supreme Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court decided on specific jurisdiction for two cases against Ford Motor, a world-wide automobile company, being sued in Montana and Minnesota where Ford’s used cars caused death to a Montana resident and inflicted personal injury to a Minnesota resident. Ford argued that courts in Montana and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over Ford because its vehicles involved in the accidents and injured non-residents of these states were not designed, manufactured, or sold directly by Ford in those States even if the accidents occurred in those states. The Court and Ford relied on a principle of specific jurisdiction: “The plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” For the first time, the Court suggested two tests for specific jurisdiction from: one is a causation test from the first phrase “arise out of,” and the other is a relation test from the second phrase “relate to,” meaning “some relationship without a causal showing.” Ford argued that courts in Montana and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over Ford since its vehicles involved in the accidents and injured non-residents of these states were not designed, manufactured, or sold directly by Ford in those States even if the accidents occurred in those states. However, the Court approved specific jurisdiction of Montana and Minnesota, by rejecting Ford’s causation-only approach, instead by applying the new relationship test. This paper overviews rules of personal jurisdiction including general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction, and observes discussions in this recent Ford case.
참고문헌 (26)
- Robert L. Felix, "American Conflicts Law" (2011), Carolina Academic Press
- Toni M. Fine, "American Legal Systems: A Resource and Reference Guide" (2008), LexisNexis
- Jack H. Friedenthal, "Civil Procedure" (2005), Thomson West
- Geoffrey C. Hazard, "Civil Procedure" (2011), Foundation Press
- Peter Hay, "Conflict of Laws" (2018), West
- Patrick J. Borchers, "J. Mcintyre Machinery, Goodyear, and the Incoherence of the Minimum Contacts Test", Creighton Law Review, 44, pp.1245~ (2011)
- Rodger D. Citron, "The Last Common Law Justice: The Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens", University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 88, pp.433~ (2011)
- Judy M. Cornett, "Good-Bye Significant Contacts: General Personal Jurisdiction After Daimler AG V. Bauman", Ohio State Law Journal, 76, pp.101~ (2015)
- Natia Daviti, "Daimler AG v. Bauman: A Change in the Climate of General Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations", Westchester Bar Journal, 40, pp.7~ (2015)
- Donald L. Doernberg, "Resoling International Shoe", Texas A&M Law Review, 2, pp.247~ (2014)
- Howard M. Erichson, "Case-Linked Jurisdiction and Busybody States", Minnesota Law Review Headnotes, 105, pp.54~ (2020)
- Alison Frankel, "Zantac generics plaintiffs hope SCOTUS Ford decision rescues claims against brand-name makers", Westlaw Journal Products Liability, 32(04) (2021)
- Bernadette Bollas Genetin, "The Supreme Court New Approach to Personal Jurisdiction", Southern Methodist University Law Review, 68, pp.107~ (2015)
- Lee Goldman, "From Calder to Walden and Beyond: The Proper Application of the “Effects Test” in Personal Jurisdiction Cases", San Diego Law Review, 52, pp.357~ (2015)
- D. Darrell Hill, "Ford air bag suit rerouted back to Virgin Islands federal court", Westlaw Journal Automotive, 40(25), pp.01~ (2021)
- Rosalie Berger Levinson, "Reining in Abuses of Executive Power Through Substantive Due Process", Florida Law Review, 60, pp.519~ (2008)
- Jeff Lingwall, "Fraudulent Aggregation: The Effect of Daimler and Walden on Mass Litigation", Florida Law Review, 69, pp.599~ (2017)
- Arthur R. Miller, "What are Courts for? Have We Forsaken the Procedural Gold Standard?", Louisiana Law Review, 78, pp.739~ (2018)
- Tanya J. Monestier, "Whose Law of Personal Jurisdiction? The Choice of Law Problem in the Recognition of Foreign Judgments", Boston University Law Review, 96, pp.1729~ (2016)
- Charles W, "Cassandra Burke Robertson, “A New State Registration Act: Legislating a Longer Arm For Personal Jurisdiction", Harvard Journal on Legislation, 57, pp.377~ (2020)
- Charles W, "Cassandra Burke Robertson, Linda Sandstrom Simard, “Ford's Jurisdictional Crossroads", Georgetown Law Journal Online, 109, pp.102~ (2020)
- Adam N. Steinman, "Supreme Court Development of Minimum Contacts Doctrine, 4 Federal Practice and Procedure", ~ (2021)
- Adam N. Steinman, "1069 Modern Principles of Personal Jurisdiction, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ", ~ (2021)
- S.I. Strong, "Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in U.S. Courts: Problems and Possibilities", Review of Litigation, 33, pp.45~ (2014)
- Symeon C. Symeonides, "Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2017: Thirty-First Annual Survey", American Journal of Comparative Law, 66, pp.1~ (2018)
- Michael Vitiello, "Limiting Access to U.S. Courts: The Supreme Court's New Personal Jurisdiction Case Law", U.C. Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, 21, pp.209~ (2015)