Main Content
Daimler AG v. Bauman
As noted above, International Shoe suggested that there would be two types of personal jurisdiction.
(1) General personal jurisdiction: The forum state need not have any relationship with the events giving rise to the lawsuit. Everyone agrees that a court of a defendant's domicile (for a human defendant), or of its place of incorporation or its principal place of business (for a corporation), can exercise general personal jurisdiction.
(2) Specific personal jurisdiction: There is some relationship among the forum state, the parties, and the facts giving rise to the lawsuit.
In Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Supreme Court established that general personal jurisdiction can be exercised by a forum other than a corporation’s states of incorporation and principal place of business only when the company’s contacts surpass some unspecified level when viewed in comparison to the company’s “nationwide and worldwide activities” so as to render it "essentially at home." But what does it mean to be "essentially at home"? The Daimler majority opinion addresses this question in a footnote. Justice Sotomayor's concurrence states the majority's rule more clearly than does the majority itself.
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.