回複:ok, now we are back to square 1 again

來源: sjy0627 2009-02-11 21:21:07 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (619 bytes)
回答: 回複:here's a link to prove my pointsjy06272009-02-11 17:43:30
First, Forum rule is about whether you can sue someone in the state you want to sue. Venue rule is which state court is the proper place for you to sue assuming the state has jurisdiction over the defendant.

Second, Minimum Contact rule is a lowest standard required by the Constitution. Some states have unlimited long arm statute such as California. In this case, the quasi in rem action is not useful. However, some states like NY have limited long arm statute. In this case, the quasi in rem action could be a gap filler. So if State B has limited long arm statute, quasi in rem action would still be useful.
請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”