SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (150)3/26/2000 11:35:00 AM
From: Janice Shell  Read Replies (1) of 12465
 
Interesting article, though I wish he'd chosen to direct more of his argument to defamation cases.

Calder's influence in Internet personal jurisdiction cases has been slight, as most analysis has centered instead on questions of purposeful availment.

This, for example, isn't true as far as "basher" suits are concerned: Calder is almost always cited: the defendants should have known that what they said would have greatest impact in the plaintiff's home state, and should therefore have expected to be sued there. Which is nonsense, as the plaintiff's "home state" may only be where the company in question happens to be incorporated, as in the HITT case.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News