Talk:Minimum contacts

Daimler and Walden impacts on Personal Jurisdiction
In 2014, the Supreme Court, in a bit of a rapid fire fashion popped off two decisions that have been held by the legal community to refine and shrink the scope of Personal Jurisdiction. Specifically, Daimler AG v. Bauman No. 11-965, 571 U.S. 310 (2014) and Walden v. Fiore, et al., No. 12-574, slip op. at 13-14 (Feb. 25, 2014).

The Wiki entry for Daimler is a bit sparse but basically, the Supreme Court upheld that the "substantively home" test only applied to an entity's place of residence and any main base of operations. It has limited scope under Daimler to apply to parties. (In other words, the bent obtained is that the tortfeasor(s) really have to actively be doing business in the forum State to have the first prong of International Shoe to apply to either General or Specific jurisdiction in a case- otherwise, under Daimler, they're not deemed to be "at home" in the forum State.)

The Wiki entry for Walden is nonexistent (Someone willing to do this justice? I don't have the time right now, unfortunately...entirely too much to do as it is...) but basically it yet again reinforced the five part test that came out of Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) that was a refinement of the specific questions asked but not needing to be answered by the Court in Worldwide. It also strongly stated that the minimum contacts inquiry begins but not ends with something like contracts with the plaintiff. It held that a contract is insufficient to establish that relationship by and of itself. It held that, "To be sure, a defendant’s contacts with the forum State may be intertwined with his transactions or interactions with the plaintiff or other parties. But a defendant’s relationship with a plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction." It also held that, "Due process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State." This translates into a moderately important distinction on Personal Jurisdiction.

Under Walden, a contract is insufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction unless there is a VENUE requirement clause in the contract, which renders any discussions of personal jurisdiction moot. Under Walden, it is required for the plaintiff and court to show that things like effects like under Calder or similar are in play in order to have conduct to meet the minimal contacts test. There's some other interesting legal theories that may be possible through this but I'm not going to go into details on that.

Basically...the entry needs adjustment- because it's misleading under both Daimler and Walden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobodyofimport (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

General vs. specific jurisdiction
Maybe should mention the general vs. specific jurisdiction distinction in relation to how minimum the contacts really need to be? (Cf. Helicopteros v. Hall. 466 U.S. 408 (1984))
 * Very true - I'll work on it! :) -- BD2412 talk 03:48, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

helicopteros
The discussion of Helicopteros is very simplistic as it stands. The contacts were not systematic and continuous and it did not have a headquarters there for there to be general jurisdiction. The cause of action did not arise out of or relate to the foreign corporation's activities within the forum for there to be specific jurisdiction. But if the case was argued on specific jurisdiction grounds more ardantly, it may have showed that it was enough that the helicopter used came from texas and that the flying pilot was trained there.

The Helicopteros case was supplanted in 2014 by Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 310 (2014). 72.187.4.14 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Minimum Contact
Might also mention that in Burger King v. Rudezwicz, court found that the lack minimum contact could be countered by "other factors" including, Plaintiff's interests, the Def's interests, and the court's interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.225.22 (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing "references" that are merely wikilinks that are already present in the text of the article
If an article contains a wikilink, then adding a reference which consists merely of that very same wikilink is at redundant, awkward, and worthless. I thought the point of wikipedia was to have inline hyperlinks. Maybe I just don't get it. If you feel that the inline wikilink is not sufficient support for the information, how on earth could tossing a reference to that same link be sufficient? It cannot. If you insist that the information must include some reference above and beyond the wikilink, then here are your options: 1) provide those references (not merely a reference to that same wikilink, obviously); 2) remove all of the unreferenced content for lack of support; or 3) do nothing and I will carry out option 2.WikiLawyerWasTaken (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * People do print Wikipedia articles out to hold onto for reference, therefore we do need the references (i.e. full case citations and dates) in the article. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see that this is becoming a wiki-addicted geek vs. wiki tourist contest. Since I actually have a full life, I am not going to get into an edit war with you two geeks. I don't have the time or desire to compete on your level. I'd like to make an observation before I go, however. I have checked out a number of other law related articles. Not ONE of them has this insipid referencing of wikilinks to the exact same wikilink. Anywhere. I am quite certain that you will not suddenly go around making the same edits to other law-related articles. Why? Because this isn't about what is or is not proper in wiki articles. This is about a couple of wiki-addicted geeks pi$$ing on a tree to mark their territory. The contest is over and the wiki-addicted geeks win.WikiLawyerWasTaken (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WikiLawyerWasTaken, you have misunderstood us. And, to a certain degree, we have misunderstood the point in your edit summary as well. Your edit took too much away. You removed the entire footnote. It is not sufficient to only state the name of the case in the body of the article, its full legal citation must also be given, either parenthetically in the article, or as a footnote. As the article now stands, the full case citation is given in a footnote. This is what we were saying cannot be removed because each wikiarticle must have its own full citations and cannot rely on another wikiarticle to provide them. However, what we misunderstood that you were saying was your point that the footnote had the same wikilink as in the body proper. What you should have done was only remove the wikilinks in the footnote while leaving the actual legal citation. These wikilinks should have been replaced with either (a) external links to the case decision, or (b) nothing. But, the citation in the footnote has to remain. In the meantime, I am going to go ahead and do (b) until either I, you, or someone else can provide actual external links to the case decisions, headnotes, etc. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  07:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Your comments above actually violate Wikipedia’s rules against personal attacks, for which you could be blocked. I am going to choose to ignore them and do nothing except my part in fixing the footnotes. I cannot speak for the other editor. —  Spike Toronto  07:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅With these edits, I have removed the redundant wikilinks in the footnotes. However, the footnotes need to have could be improved by external links to the actual case decisions and/or headnotes added. I am unfamiliar with American online court reports, so I leave it to others to track these down. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  08:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, they do not require external links (not everything that counts as a reliable source has been made available online - at least, not yet). However, these are Supreme Court cases, and should be easy enough to find, so I'll look for them within the next few days. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. bd2412  T 22:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work BD2412! I have been off Wikipedia for about a month and so am only just now seeing the citation links that you added. Thanks again! —  Spike Toronto  21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)