In 2004, twenty-two Argentine residents filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Daimler, a German company headquartered in Stuttgart, which manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany. that focuses fundamentally on fairness to both litigants. and initially introduced in Goodyear and her dissent in J.
Trautman, The Law of Multistate Problems (1965). Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv.
Umsatz daimler 2014 series#
Although some have viewed Daimler as in keeping with a series of recent Court decisions limiting plaintiffs’ access to the courts, closer examination reveals that Justice Ginsburg continues to apply a theory of personal jurisdiction, derived from the seminal work of Professors Arthur von Mehren and Donald Trautman 6 × 6. subsidiary could be imputed to it on an agency theory. even assuming that the contacts of its U.S. the Supreme Court clarified Goodyear by holding that Daimler AG (Daimler), a German public stock company, could not be subject to California’s general jurisdiction in a suit filed by Argentine plaintiffs over events occurring on Argentine soil because Daimler was not “at home” in California, 5 × 5. That decision declared that a court may only assert general jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations where “their affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home” there. was clarified in recent years with respect to general jurisdiction by Justice Ginsburg’s pathbreaking decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. 481, 482 (2012) (describing the Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence as “inconclusive”). Steinman, The Lay of the Land: Examining the Three Opinions in J. 2009) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting) see also Adam N. The law of personal jurisdiction, often regarded as “rather muddled,” 1 × 1.
0 kommentar(er)
