Mississippi College Law Review
Publication Date
Spring 2024
Abstract
The concept of personal jurisdiction in its modern context has existed since the early 1900s. In time, courts have vetted the idea that an individual, company, or legal entity may be brought under the jurisdiction of a state or federal court by reason of its particular contacts with the jurisdiction. In its creation, the Supreme Court of the United States added the requirement that the contact must "arise out of or relate to" the forum state. But dismally, the Court has provided very little on how to apply and operate the "arise out of" prong. As a result, both federal and state courts struggle to practically apply this doctrine and in turn, a variety of confusing and conflicting tests have been created.
In attempting to clarify the meaning of the "arises out of" prong, the United States Supreme Court recently considered the jurisdictional dilemma of Bristol-Myers Squibb ("BMS"), a large company that was nearly brought under the purview of a California state court. Unfortunately, in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, the Supreme Court has failed to rectify the confusion.
This Note examines the law surrounding BMS's victory.
Recommended Citation
Walker, Loden
(2024)
"Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. V. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County: An Exploration of the "Arises Out Of" Prong in Personal Jurisdiction,"
Mississippi College Law Review: Vol. 37:
Iss.
3, Article 9.
Available at:
https://dc.law.mc.edu/lawreview/vol37/iss3/9