This is turning into a civ pro discussion now. Great.
assuming B state has personal jurisdiction, because A owns a house therefore minimum contact requirement is met, don't you have to look at the Venue rules to figure out if it is ok to bring suit in B state?
My original answer is based on the assumption that the state's long-arm statute would give State B personal jurisdiction over A. If that is the case, then venue clause has to be considered to determine if a case can be brought in State B, correct?
Or are you still saying that assuming that if State B has personal jurisdiction, then quasi-in-rem thing may apply?
I don't mean to argue with you for the sake of argument. Just want to lean the true answer to this question.
assuming B state has personal jurisdiction, because A owns a house therefore minimum contact requirement is met, don't you have to look at the Venue rules to figure out if it is ok to bring suit in B state?
My original answer is based on the assumption that the state's long-arm statute would give State B personal jurisdiction over A. If that is the case, then venue clause has to be considered to determine if a case can be brought in State B, correct?
Or are you still saying that assuming that if State B has personal jurisdiction, then quasi-in-rem thing may apply?
I don't mean to argue with you for the sake of argument. Just want to lean the true answer to this question.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
