In golf, a mulligan is when a golfer hits a second shot if they’re not satisfied with their first shot. We’ve used the term before to refer to the second chances given to plaintiffs to re-plead their claims. So, we decided to look up the origin of the term and found conflicting stories. The most
Without detouring into a larger discussion on the impacts of humans on the environment and our fellow animals, we can say that we are big fans of the other extant great apes. Our puppy’s fascination with nature documentaries has helped pique that interest of late. Our gingery cousin the orangutan, the largest primarily arboreal mammal
We are trying hard not to fall into the current fashion of catastrophizing everything. But the SCOTUS opinion in Mallory might have been the worst recent High Court ruling for corporate defendants. This blog has spilled a lot of tears and ink on Mallory (including here, here, and here, and several other
Beyond the Supreme Court’s rolling out the red carpet to forum shopping plaintiffs, the decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), was further disturbing to us in that Mallory suggested that a state could deem, through a “consent statute,” grounds for “consent” to general personal jurisdiction that were much less than the “at home” standard previously required for such broad jurisdiction. Id. at 145-46 (“attach[ing] jurisdictional consequences to what some might dismiss as mere formalities” such as completing a registration form and recognizing jurisdiction from “actions . . . that may seem like technicalities”). Those other examples, however, all involved limited “special” jurisdiction issues, not the far broader expanse of general personal jurisdiction.Continue Reading Post Mallory Limits to Deeming Personal Jurisdiction
It’s been a little less than a year since the Supreme Court’s rolling out the red carpet to forum-shopping plaintiffs in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023). Mallory was, in places 5-4, and elsewhere 4-1-4, and everywhere extremely fact specific – to the point of including a defendant-specific image of its Pennsylvania contacts that, as far as we can tell, wasn’t even in the record, but rather was found on the Internet. 600 U.S. at 142-43. The result – beyond the Dormant Commerce Clause flag waving in Justice Alito’s concurrence (discussed here) – was to punch this plaintiff’s one-time ticket against the Norfolk Southern Railway. “To decide this case, we need not speculate whether any other statutory scheme and set of facts would suffice to establish consent to suit.” Id. at 136.Continue Reading Mallory in the States – A Year After the Deluge
Those of us who took Con Law as first year law students may recall Marbury v. Madison as an early test of the Supreme Court’s place in our nascent republic. Alliteration being a mnemonic device, some may recall that Madison was Secretary of State James Madison and the decision was written by Chief Justice John
Released in 1965 by the Miracles, “The Tracks of My Tears” is ranked by Rolling Stone as the “Greatest Motown Song of All Time.” Smokey Robinson’s lead vocals are pure silk, the harmonies ooze soul, and the guitar licks and strings tie it all together. The song and the Miracles helped spread Motown around the globe. Today’s decision about an artificial tears product won’t stack up against Smokey and the Miracles, but it hits a few chords worth sharing.Continue Reading Tracks of My Tears – Narrowing of Economic Loss Class Claims in Kentucky
According to a recent decision, one Pennsylvania court thinks that the answer is “yes.”
Simon v. First Savings Bank of Indiana, 2023 WL 5985282 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2023), isn’t a prescription medical product case, and doesn’t even involve torts, so we didn’t notice it until we recently had occasion to Shepardize (an anachronism
Let us be clear at the outset. We were shocked and appalled by the 5-4 result in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 143 S. Ct. 2028 (2023), holding that phony “consent” to general jurisdiction does not offend constitutional Due Process when a state statutorily declares something less than “at home” status − corporate
Not too long ago we discussed post-remand Pennsylvania Supreme Court filings in the Mallory personal jurisdiction matter. After reviewing both sides’ filings, we observed: “[U]nless the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mallory were to act contrary to the positions of both sides, the DCC issue will be decided promptly, on this appeal.”
Well, that’s exactly what
