Helicopteros and Rosenberg and more on specific jurisdiction

As noted in class, we'll continue discussion of Helicopteros on Wednesday before moving on to the next section. At the end of class today I posed several questions. Here they are with some additional food for thought:

1) After Helicopteros, what level of a defendant's contacts will suffice for general jurisdiction? Compare the approach taken in Helicopteros with the language in Shoe (p. 713). What does it mean for contacts to be "continuous and systematic"? What does it mean for contacts to be "continuous" and "substantial"? Are all of these conditions needed?

2) Where does Rosenberg -- discussed on p. 823 -- stand as a specific jurisdiction case after Helicopteros? Compare Shoe, p. 714 (citing Rosenberg with approval), with Helicopteros, p. 823 n. 12 (declining to decide the "continuing validity" of Rosenberg in the specific jurisdiction context). Why might Rosenberg's continuing validity be an issue?

Categories: Personal jurisdiction k-pj