The General Jurisdiction Two-Step
| dc.creator | Haley Palfreyman Jankowski | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-01-10T16:05:40Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-01-10T16:05:40Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024-12-12 | |
| dc.description | 58 pages | |
| dc.description.abstract | The Supreme Court’s watershed case on general personal jurisdiction, Daimler AG v. Bauman, celebrated its tenth birthday this year, yet it continues to be misunderstood. Daimler was the second of two decisions on general jurisdiction handed down by the Court following several decades of near-total silence on this doctrine. Daimler, together with its immediate predecessor Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, held that corporate defendants could be subject to general jurisdiction only in states where they are deemed “at home” or “essentially at home” and gave two paradigm examples of places that would constitute a corporation’s “home”: place of incorporation and principal place of business. Before these cases, general jurisdiction was commonly understood to have a much broader reach. | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 103 Or. L. Rev. 61 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0196-2043 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/30323 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.publisher | University of Oregon School of Law | |
| dc.rights | All Rights Reserved | |
| dc.subject | Corporation law | |
| dc.subject | United States Supreme Court | |
| dc.subject | State law | |
| dc.subject | Federal law | |
| dc.subject | Business law | |
| dc.title | The General Jurisdiction Two-Step | |
| dc.type | Article |