Sentences with phrase «assert general jurisdiction»

The United States Supreme Court has made clear twice within the last five years that a state court may assert general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment «only when the corporation's affiliations with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive «as to render it essentially at home in the forum State.»»

Not exact matches

The Third Circuit in In re Bevill Bresler & Schulman Asset Management Corp., developed a five - part test (the Bevill test) to examine the merits of such an assertion by an individual employee against company counsel.50 Under this test, employees must show that (1) they approached corporate counsel for the purpose of seeking legal advice; (2) they made it clear that they were seeking advice in their individual capacity; (3) counsel sought to communicate with the employee in this individual capacity, mindful of the conflicts with its representation of the company; (4) the communications were confidential; and (5) the communications did not concern the employee's official duties or the general affairs of the company.51 The Bevill test has been recognised by other jurisdictions as a means of assessing whether a company employee may assert attorney — client privilege in an individual capacity arising out of communications with corporate counsel.52 (See also Chapter 13 on employee rights.)

Existing statutory limits on federal court jurisdiction limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum state).

«The applicant asserts excess of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, fairness, and violation of his Charter rights and a lack of institutional impartiality and independence between subject tribunal and the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario and the attorney general and his General for Ontario and the attorney general and his general and his agents.

There also was a general consensus that it is very difficult for a competition authority to cede enforcement jurisdiction to a foreign authority, when the first authority finds domestic harm attributable to extraterritorial conduct and has the ability to assert jurisdiction.