Law Case Analysis

In these two cases, the question before the courts make decision is did the United States courts have jurisdiction over the case?

Court’s decision for Asahi Metals case was that the United States Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court and remanded for further proceeding. The decision was the court had no jurisdiction. As we know, the substantial connection between the defendant and the forum state is to find of minimum contacts. First, Asahi Metal had not purposefully availed itself of the California market. If Asahi advertised or marketed its products in California, it could constitute sufficient minimum contacts. However, Asahi had not engaged in these activities in California. Second, Cheng Shin settled with Zurcher and the dispute was between two nonresident defendants. California’s legitimate interests in the dispute had considerably diminished. Jurisdiction was unreasonable and unfair. So, depend on this information that court decided reversed and remanded.

Court’s decision for Graduate Management case was that the United States court had the personal jurisdiction over Raju because he had sufficient minimum contacts with United States. Personal jurisdiction can be established under specific jurisdiction. Form the specific jurisdiction rules Raju had purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State and GMAC’s claimed arise out of those activities directed at the State. For example, GMATplus site provided specific ordering information for U.S. customers, the website showed the book can ship to U.S. within three to five business days and the selling price for the products were listed in dollars. Also, based on electronic activities, the ALS Scan test indicated that Raju directed his activity at the U.S. market and targeted U.S. customers. So, Raju had sufficient minimum contacts with the United States, the court of U.S. had the personal jurisdiction over him under the federal rules.