On April 25, 2022, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the plaintiff’s appeal in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 266 A.3d 542 (Pa. 2021), in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the increasingly contentious “consent-by-registration” theory of personal jurisdiction. The theory deems corporate defendants to have consented to general personal jurisdiction (also known as “all-purpose” jurisdiction) in a forum based solely on its registration to conduct business there.
Continue Reading United States Supreme Court to Weigh in on Consent-by-Registration Theory of Personal Jurisdiction

As a result of several recent United States Supreme Court decisions, courts across the country have applied a more exacting standard for assessing whether defendants can be subject to general personal jurisdiction in a particular forum.
Continue Reading Challenging the Consent-Based Theory of General Personal Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania

A review of the parties’ briefing on Bristol-Myers’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court highlights significant questions for companies in the retail industry should the U.S. Supreme Court deny the petition and thereby allow the decision to stand as controlling law in California.
Continue Reading Bristol-Myers Personal Jurisdiction Decision Makes Its Way to the U.S. Supreme Court

Over the past two years, Hunton & Williams has been carefully monitoring the application of Daimler AG v. Bauman in trial and appellate courts throughout the country. To date, very few appellate decisions have analyzed the consent-based theory of general jurisdiction after Daimler. However, in the recent Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp. opinion, the Second Circuit addressed it head on, and the opinion has important implications for companies in the retail and consumer products industry.
Continue Reading Next Up in Important Decisions Interpreting Daimler: Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp.