Pennoyer Strikes Back: Personal Jurisdiction in a Global Age

Texas A&M Law Review, Vol. 3, Issue 1 (Fall 2015)

SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 185

30 Pages Posted: 16 Dec 2015 Last revised: 11 Feb 2016

See all articles by William Dorsaneo

William Dorsaneo

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law

Date Written: 2015

Abstract

The primary purpose of this Article is to evaluate the four most recent Supreme Court decisions on personal jurisdiction and situate those decisions within the history of Supreme Court personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. Starting with the seminal case of Pennoyer v. Neff, personal jurisdiction jurisprudence has been remarkably kaleidoscopic,with the Supreme Court intervening at various intervals to redefine the law in broad strokes, while zigzagging from one doctrinal position to another and thereby leaving lower courts to hash out the application of an evolving personal jurisdiction doctrine to varying fact patterns. I will divide this jurisprudential history into two main groups of cases after Pennoyer was superseded by the modern minimum contacts approach. The first group of decisions begins with International Shoe Co. v. Washington and continues through Hanson v. Denckla. The second group begins almost two decades later with Shaffer v. Heitner and continues through Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court and Burnham v. Superior Court.

Suggested Citation

Dorsaneo, William, Pennoyer Strikes Back: Personal Jurisdiction in a Global Age (2015). Texas A&M Law Review, Vol. 3, Issue 1 (Fall 2015) , SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 185, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2703963

William Dorsaneo (Contact Author)

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 750116
Dallas, TX 75275
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
32
Abstract Views
461
PlumX Metrics