Does your answer change if state law expressly says registration equals consent?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3369621&forum_id=2#31530831)

I think specific jurisdiction is obtained when the cause of action occurred in, or arose out of contacts in, the state.

Say a tire company headquartered in state A, with Principal place of business in state B, makes faulty tire in state C that causes an accident in state D. Tire company can be sued in states A-D, but I don't think it can be sued in state E, even if it has a small regional factory there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3369621&forum_id=2#31534401)

While SCOTUS used to speculate that contacts with a state could be so substantial and systematic that the company was effectively at home in that state, this is up in the air after Daimler v Bauman, which could be read to grant general jurisdiction only in the HQ and PPB states.

If you were to argue general jurisdiction in a particular forum state not the HQ or PPB, it would have to be a state in which the company regularly engages in a large percentage of its business. Maybe a company does 60% of its business in a state despite it not being the HQ or PPB.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3369621&forum_id=2#31534271)

I have no contacts with the forum state so it can't be said that I'm at home in the state.

So if the court does have personal jurisdiction over me, it must be through specific or in personam jurisdiction.

The court cannot have specific jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise out of my minimum contacts with the forum state.

So the only way the court could have jurisdiction over me is through in personam jurisdiction.

Assuming that my appearing through live broadcast link is per se sufficient for court to establish in personam jurisdiction, the court may still not be able to exercise jurisdiction because of the manner in which it's been obtained. My presence in the court, having been obtained through the machinations of the opposing lawyer, is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. See [court case I don't want to cite bc of school stuff]

But the more interesting question is whether appearing through live broadcast link is per se sufficient for court to establish in personam jurisdiction. I think it is.

SCOTUS has ruled that the establishment of jurisdiction by states must conform "traditional notions of fair play and due process," ideas fleshed out by International Shoe and its progeny.

While in personam jurisdiction is itself constitutional, SCOTUS has split on the reason why. The right wing of the court has said that in personam jurisdiction is the traditional bar which other forms of personal jurisdiction must meet. The left wing of the court has said that all forms of personal jurisdiction must meet an evolving standard of fairness and justice.

Both approaches would agree that appearing before a court is sufficient for establishing in personam jurisdiction. As I am defending myself in court and availing myself of the laws of the forum state, it seems neither unjust nor unfair to subject me to the forum state's laws. If not for the fact that I am not acting of my own free will, I would be subject to the court's jurisdiction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3369621&forum_id=2#31534351)

This will be a decisive advantage for companies and will leave the masses without justice.

(lib prof)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3369621&forum_id=2#31534363)

Service on a partner effects service on the partnership, and if a partner happens to be served with process in a particular state, that is sufficient to confer court's in that state with personal jurisdiction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3369621&forum_id=2#31547287)