New York Associate Christine Shang authored an article for Law360 discussing the need for a clear test for specific personal jurisdiction. Shang notes that this issue has divided lower courts and left litigants grappling for answers in the 21st century commercial world, particularly in product liability cases. In her article, Shang examines the oral argument held by the Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, et al., consolidating two pending cases involving Ford products, which exemplified two divergent approaches the Court could take and their real-world implications.
Shang concludes, “Assuming the goal is a clear line between general and specific jurisdiction and a degree of predictability as to when a product defendant’s forum contacts can lead to the exercise of specific jurisdiction in the 21st century, it would appear, based on the discussion at oral argument, that a causal rule is the preferred approach.”
To read the full article, click here (subscription may be required).