In that case, Nevada plaintiffs sued an out-of-state defendant for conducting an allegedly unlawful search of the plaintiffs while they were in Georgia preparing to board a plane bound for Nevada. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? It observed that the 'single publication rule' ordinarily applicable in multistate libel cases would require it to award P 'damages caused in all states' should she prevail in her suit, even though the bulk of P's alleged injuries had been sustained outside New Hampshire. The reputation of the libel victim may suffer harm even in a State in which he has hitherto been anonymous. We note, however, that we take this argument to present a res judicata question for the federal court. Because Wortman thus appears to hold that we may constitutionally treat the statute of limitations as a procedural rule for choice of law purposes, we consider below only whether it is prudent to treat our statute of limitations as procedural, given the peculiarities of Keeton's suit. International Shoe Co.
Search This Blog
Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible
Such statutes thus represent the legislature's attempt to achieve a balance among State interests in protecting both forum courts and defendants generally against stale claims and in insuring a reasonable period during which plaintiffs may seek recovery on otherwise sound causes of action. Although the State may still claim some interest in protecting the reputation of a non-resident, see Keeton v. One of the pharmaceuticals that BMS manufactures and sells is Plavix, a prescription drug that thins the blood and inhibits blood clotting. The defendant corporation's contacts with the forum State in Perkins were more substantial than those of respondent with New Hampshire in this case. Thus, New York's significant relationships with both the plaintiff and the defamation give rise to that State's general interest in the application of its own law, which includes a one-year limitation period. By circulating magazines purposefully throughout N. Specific jurisdiction is very different.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine
The majority, of course, claim to have done a Clark analysis, and to have reached the same result on the basis of "relevant choice-influencing considerations" that they previously reached on the basis of Gordon. In determining whether personal jurisdiction is present, a court must consider a variety of interests. The US Supreme Court found that New Hampshire had a substantial interest in helping other States to provide a forum for efficiently litigating all issues and claims. The defendants do not argue to the contrary, but rather contend, for reasons addressed in part II, that we should not apply the New Hampshire statute of limitations to Keeton's suit for nationwide damages under the rule. Keeton alleged that the district court had jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship since she was a resident of New York and Hustler was an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California. I will address them in order, as of the time the plaintiff brought her action.
See Note, Functional Approach, supra at Indeed, the State's sole and tenuous interest arising from the publication itself would seem to have been a concern, as described in Keeton v. Alternatively, the plaintiffs who are residents of a particular State—for example, the 92 plaintiffs from Texas and the 71 from Ohio—could probably sue together in their home States. Superior Court of Cal. The provisions of borrowing statutes vary widely and not all would apply to defamation actions, id.
22 days ago