Publication Date



The law of personal jurisdiction lies at the heart of all litigation. Our courts must recognize the rights of individuals as well as the rights of corporations. The motto placed at the entrance of the United States Supreme Court—"Equal Justice Under Law"—ensures the promise of equal justice under the law to all persons. It expresses the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States (the "Court") as the highest tribunal for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States and functions as a guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. From the perspective of fairness, an individual needs protection without compromising a corporate defendant’s goals in advancing its business.

The Court’s recent decisions in (1) Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, (2) Daimler AG v. Bauman, (3) J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, (4) BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, and (5) Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. San Francisco City raise serious need for re-routing courts’ approaches to personal jurisdiction because majority approaches were biased against individuals and were inconsistent with the Court’s motto. The Court never adequately considered the difference between corporations of the pre-industrial era and those of the modern-industrial era. Many modern-era corporate structures are extremely complex and often expand into the global market by organizing themselves in an orb-web formation. Hence, the current analysis of jurisdictional law is the incorrect way to determine personal jurisdiction. To address this problem, this article explains the structure of orb-web corporations and offers three approaches to personal jurisdiction, emphasizing a presence model based on the birthplace of an orb-web corporation. This article advocates how our jurisdictional law can be re-routed to enhance fairness, all while assuring the Court’s motto in an orb-web corporation’s setting.

First Page