Abstract
General personal jurisdiction allows a court to issue a binding judgment against a defendant in any case, even if the facts giving rise to the case are unrelated to that forum. In the six decades after International Shoe v. Washington, courts held that general jurisdiction existed whenever a defendant had substantial continuous and systemic contacts with the forum. This rule was narrowed significantly in 2011, however, when the Supreme Court in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown held that general jurisdiction was properly exercised only when a defendant had sufficient contacts to be “at home” in the forum.
Repository Citation
William Grayson Lambert,
The Necessary Narrowing of General Personal Jurisdiction,
100 Marq. L. Rev. 375
(2016).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol100/iss2/3