minimum contacts due process

• Substantive Due Process, Plenary-Power Doctrine, and Minimum Contacts: Arguments for Overcoming the Obstacle of Asserting Personal Jurisdiction over Terrorists Under the Anti-Terrorism Act

Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act to create a federal cause of action for torts arising out of acts of international terrorism that cause injuries to U.S. citizens. Even though victims have benefited from the Act, they have also faced significant hurdles in bringing their causes of action. Meeting the requirements for personal jurisdiction has been one of these major difficulties. Concerns over the lack of minimum contacts between the terrorist defendants and the United States sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process have led many courts to conclude that they did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. This Note proposes three methods that courts can use to exert personal jurisdiction over terrorists under the Anti-Terrorism Act. First, by drawing an analo...

• Iowa Law Review
• Nbr. 92-1, November 2006

• Wood v. Fliehman, (Ohio 2011)

Motion to dismiss or vacate; foreign judgment; default judgment; forum state; de novo; long arm statute; long arm jurisdiction; due process; minimum contacts; substantial connection; fair play and substantial justice; purposefully avails; interstate facilities; competent witness; personal knowledge; abuse of discretion; Evid.R. 602.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• The Problems of State Taxation of Interstate Commerce and Why Congress Should Act

Introduction. The Problem of Aggressive, Unclear, and Non-uniform Taxation of Interstate Commerce. The Constitutionality of State Taxation of Interstate Commerce. A. To Impose a Tax on Out-of-State Businesses, States Must Prove that Such Businesses Have Minimum Contacts Pursuant to the Due Process Clause. B. To Impose Tax on Out-of-State Businesses, Commerce Clause Nexus Must Be Satisfied to Prohibit Undue Burden on Interstate Commerce.

• Business Law Brief
• Nbr. III-2, April 2007

• Austin Miller Am. Antiques, Inc. v. Cavallaro, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court appropriately dismissed breach of contract action filed by an Ohio corporation against a nonresident defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction where the defendant lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Ohio to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• An exegesis of the Multistate Tax Commission nexus guideline: the physical presence requirement.

Nexus Guideline for Application of a Taxing State's Sale and Use Tax to a Remote Seller", the Multistate Tax Commission's effort to clarify nexus issues, is unsuccessful because the standards it sets forth are broader than those accepted by the courts. The guidelines do not acknowledge the bright line "physical presence" standard approved by the US Supreme Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and fail to distinguish the Commerce Clause "substantial nexus" test from the Due Process Clause "minimum contacts" standard. Other aspects of the guidelines are of value, but these two matters need to be corrected.

• Tax Executive
• Vol. 48 Nbr. 4, July 1996

• Natl. Court Reporters, Inc. v. Rebecca N. Strandberg & Assoc., (Ohio 2009)

Long-arm jurisdiction; R.C. 2903.382; due process; minimum contacts

• Ohio Supreme Court

• U.S. District Court Case Summaries: October 10, 2011

Civil Procedure Personal jurisdiction

... was consistent with constitutional due process requirements. The Court first considered whether, ... with due process if the defendant has "minimum contacts" with the forum, such that to require the...

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• October 17, 2011

• Joffe v. Cable Tech, Inc., (Ohio 2005)

Trial court did not err by dismissing appellant's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ohio's long-arm statute did not reach defendants and defendants did not maintain the requisite minimum contacts to allow jurisdiction under Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Keller v. Keller, (Ohio 2005)

In determining the propriety of personal jurisdiction based on Civ.R. 4.3(A)(8), the dispositive issue is "whether the nonresident defendant lived in a marital relationship within the state to an extent sufficient to satisfy the minimum-contacts requirement of constitutional due process.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982)

... sanction did not violate petitioners' due process rights. Held:. 1. Rule 37(b)(2)(A) may be applie... of this Court due to their business contacts with Pennsylvania." Id., at 201a. Independently of... defendant only so long as there exist `minimum contacts' between the defendant and the forum Stat...

• U.S. Supreme Court