Why the Supreme Court Should Give the Easy Answer to an Easy Question: A Response to Professors Childress, Neuborne, Sherry and Silberman

6 Pages Posted: 11 Dec 2013

Date Written: December 9, 2013

Abstract

This paper responds to arguments that the Supreme Court should sidestep the core questions of personal jurisdiction in DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman. It argues that general personal jurisdiction over a corporation should be limited to the corporation's home state. As a corollary of this point, an agency relationship between a parent and subsidiary does not justify attribution of contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction. The key to the analysis is understanding the fundamental difference between specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction, and this distinction explains several of the disagreements between myself and other participants in this Roundtable.

Keywords: personal jurisdiction, general jurisdiction, Daimler, Goodyear

Suggested Citation

Erichson, Howard M., Why the Supreme Court Should Give the Easy Answer to an Easy Question: A Response to Professors Childress, Neuborne, Sherry and Silberman (December 9, 2013). 66 Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc 179 (2013); Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2365522. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2365522

Howard M. Erichson (Contact Author)

Fordham University School of Law ( email )

150 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023
United States
646-312-8233 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
28
Abstract Views
403
PlumX Metrics