Rules of specific jurisdiction in the US based on jurisprudence

• Pages: 66-70

66

Vol. 7 No.3

January, 2022

Balkan Journal of Interdisciplinary Research

IIPCCL Publishing, Graz-Austria

ISSN 2410-759X

Acces online at www.iipccl.org

Rules of specic jurisdiction in the US based on jurisprudence

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Endri Papajorgji

Dean of the Faculty of Law of TBU (Tirana Business University)

Abstract

This article will analyze the main rules of jurisdiction in the US. For many reasons, the

state rules of jurisdiction in the US are similar to those in England. Jurisdiction may extend

within the territory of the state in question. In the 20th century, states began to expand their

jurisdiction based on legislation. Companies from another country or from foreign countries,

which did business in the country in question, was asked to designate an agent, who would

be a party in case of litigation, or the process would take place at the state business site. These

state statutes, which vary from state to state, are known in system terminology (case law) such

as statutes of extension of inuence (inuence), allowing state courts to bring before the court

people located in other states. It must be borne in mind that these principles were developed

as part of a process within the state, however, they apply in the same way in international

jurisdiction. In the US, foreigners are treated the same as US citizens coming from other states

when it comes to jurisdiction. The full trust and credit clause of the US Constitution, regulated

in Article IV of the US Constitution determines the automatic recognition of decisions by sister

states, however, the laer does not specify the conditions to be met by the court to extend

the decision to citizens of other states. This was not a problem in the case of the legal system

precedent (case law) but in cases of extension of jurisdiction it was a problem.

Keywords: Jurisdiction, international, law, US, process.

The doctrine of minimum contacts

To solve the problem, the US Supreme Court relied on the procedural clause of the

14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

In the maer International Shoe Co versus State of Michigan,1 it was a company based

in Missouri, which had several vendors in Washington state, who were selling the

product under the control of a manager in Missouri.

The vendors were resident in Washington and working based on percentage of sales.

The messages they received were transmied to Missouri to be accepted or returned

and the goods were shipped directly to customers in Washington. The question

before the court was about if the company was under the jurisdiction of the Court

in Washington in lawsuits relating to the payment of contributions transferred to the

unemployment benet fund. The service was based in a vendor in Washington and a

copy was sent to the company in Missouri. The state courts in Washington ruled that

they had jurisdiction. The appeal contained the question concerning jurisdiction was

led by the Washington State Supreme Court in the US (Supreme) Court.

The decision. Historically, the jurisdiction of the courts to issue a decision in personam

is based on their power de facto on the respondent. His presence within the territorial

jurisdiction of a court it was necessary for the decision taken to be valid for him. Since

the personality of society is ctitious, it is clear that not as an individual, presence