Abstract
When defining the extent of their jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, state courts must be ever mindful of the principle that "all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. In deciding jurisdictional issues against this background of Supreme Court decisions, many courts have had considerable difficulty in ascertaining the precise extent of the amorphous and discretionary standards set forth in International Shoe and subsequent cases. In the recent decision of Tyson v. Whitaker & Son, Inc., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was put to this task in deciding whether due process permitted the assertion of jurisdiction over a nonconsenting foreign corporation. This Note will demonstrate that at the time of Tyson, the existing constitutional framework governing long-arm jurisdiction supplied a three-pronged test for defining the limits on state court jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. When this test is applied to the facts in Tyson, it becomes apparent that the Law Court's opinion reflected a misunderstanding of both the Supreme Court decisions and the proper focus of jurisdictional inquiry. In addition, this Note will describe the implications of the Tyson decision for state jurisdiction in products liability cases. Finally, this Note will detail the Supreme Court opinion subsequent to Tyson which clarified the constitutional reach of state jurisdiction over nonresident defendants and implicitly overruled the Tyson court's reasoning. This study not only illustrates the principles of long-arm jurisdiction, but also provides an insight into the interaction between courts attempting to develop a coherent body of law.
First Page
497
Recommended Citation
Philip M. Coffin III,
The Role of Foreseeability in Jurisdictional Inquiry: Tyson v. Whittaker & Son, Inc.,
32
Me. L. Rev.
497
(1980).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol32/iss2/10
