Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, [note 1] 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines, via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that an Ohio state court could exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation on the basis of that company's "continuous and systematic" contacts with the state of Ohio. [1]
Personal jurisdiction is largely a constitutional requirement, though also shaped by state long-arm statutes and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while venue is purely statutory. It is possible for either venue or personal jurisdiction to preclude a court from hearing a case. Consider these examples:
On June 19, 2018, oral arguments commenced with the following arguments made: whether or not the petition is properly the subject of the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, whether or not the right to marry and the right to choose whom to marry are cognates of the right to life and liberty, whether or not the limitation of ...
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc: Full case name; Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Rowena S. Disini, Lianne Ivy P. Medina, Janette Toral and Ernesto Sonido, Jr., vs. the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office, the Chief of the Philippine National Police ...
[1]: 42 They are equivalent to regional trial courts, [17] and were established under the "Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines" (Presidential Decree No. 1083) to handle personal relations between Muslims. [1]: 60 Sharia courts have original jurisdiction over a number of issues relating to Sharia. They also have concurrent ...
Under these circumstances, the court found that personal jurisdiction was proper under a theory of national jurisdiction: the defendant had targeted the U.S. at large from outside of the territory and intended to avail himself of the opportunity of selling test answers to a U.S. graduate school entrance test to his most likely customers: Americans.
This personal jurisdiction is specific to the act, and a party cannot be sued for unrelated activity. In many instances, state long-arm statutes extend personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the U.S. Constitution. There are two kinds of personal jurisdiction, general and specific jurisdiction: [2]