Civil Procedure

Teaching and Learning Personal Jurisdiction After The Stealth Revolution

Deborah J. Challener

Abstract Response to Michael H. Hoffheimer, The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction In The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction, Professor Michael Hoffheimer uses Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (BMS), the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest personal jurisdiction decision, as a vehicle to critically examine the Court’s recent narrowing of both general and specific personal jurisdiction. […]

The Not-So-Stealthy Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction

Judy M. Cornett

Abstract Response to Michael H. Hoffheimer, The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction With elegant style and in devastating detail, Professor Michael Hoffheimer has analyzed the slow death spiral of personal jurisdiction under the Roberts Court. He accurately identifies one source of the frustration scholars and lower courts have felt in trying to make sense of the Roberts […]

Reflections on Hoffheimer’s The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction

Michael Vitiello

Abstract Response to Michael H. Hoffheimer, The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction The Supreme Court did not grant review in a case involving personal jurisdiction between 1990 and 2010 at a time when our world flattened. Since then, the Court has decided six cases. In each, the Court has found that the assertion of jurisdiction violated […]

The Muddy-Booted, Disingenuous Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction

Patrick J. Borchers

Abstract Response to Michael H. Hoffheimer, The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction When the editors of the Florida Law Review offered me the opportunity to comment on Professor Michael Hoffheimer’s wonderfully insightful article, I almost declined. The reason is that I agree with pretty much everything of substance he says. I agree with him that the […]

A “Procedural Nightmare”: Dueling Courts and the Application of the First-Filed Rule

Written by: Andrew J. Fuller

Abstract Pretend that Party A sues Party B in Court 1. Instead of countersuing, however, B then sues A in Court 2. The problem this Note examines is whether Court 1 may enjoin B from continuing to litigate in Court 2 if Court 2 has already declined to stay the case or transfer it to […]

Fraudulent Aggregation: The Effect of Daimler and Walden on Mass Litigation

Written by: Jeff Lingwall and Chris Wray

Abstract This Article examines the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdictional tightening in Daimler and Walden on mass litigation. This Article shows how the Supreme Court’s changes to general and specific jurisdiction, considered together, end the practice of tactically allocating non-diverse plaintiffs across state lines to defeat diversity jurisdiction in nationwide litigation, a doctrine […]