A tale of two jurisdictions

For nearly seventy years, the Court has embraced two theories of when jurisdiction over a defendant is permissible. The traditional theory, general jurisdiction, authorizes jurisdiction when there is a tight connection between the defendant and the forum. The modern theory, specific jurisdiction, fo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inVanderbilt law review Vol. 68; no. 2; p. 501
Main Author Trammell, Alan M
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Nashville Vanderbilt University, School of Law 01.03.2015
Vanderbilt Law Review
Subjects
Analysis
Case law
Judicial powers
Jurisdiction
Jurisprudence
Litigation
Personal jurisdiction
State court decisions
Studies
Theory
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:For nearly seventy years, the Court has embraced two theories of when jurisdiction over a defendant is permissible. The traditional theory, general jurisdiction, authorizes jurisdiction when there is a tight connection between the defendant and the forum. The modern theory, specific jurisdiction, focuses more on the connection between the lawsuit itself and the forum. Although the two theories should have developed in tandem, the doctrine has become a morass. This Article makes three contributions. First, it elucidates the unsettling disjunction that has developed between general and specific jurisdiction. Second, from a doctrinal perspective, it demonstrates that the Court has severely constrained the reach of general jurisdiction in a way that would have been surprising just four years ago. Third, it posits that the concept of a saturation point for general jurisdiction logically suggests a saturation point for specific jurisdiction -- that is, a place where the lawsuit itself could not have more significant ties to any other forum.
ISSN:0042-2533
1942-9886