Civil Procedure: The Complexities of Consent to Personal Jurisdiction

Authors

• Scott Dodson, University of California College of the Law, San FranciscoFollow

Abstract

In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., the Supreme Court decided a personal-jurisdiction case outside the minimum contacts framework for the first time since 1990. Five justices deemed consent to be a method of establishing personal jurisdiction without regard to International Shoe. And, relying on pre-Shoe precedent, the Court held the defendant to have consented to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by complying with that state’s unique business-registration statute, which permitted its courts to “exercise general personal jurisdiction” over a registered corporation.

Mallory could be read as treating consent to personal jurisdiction as a simple, monolithic concept. But, in reality, consent to personal jurisdiction is not a simple idea, and its invocation ought not elide its complexities.

Recommended Citation

Dodson, Scott (2026) "Civil Procedure: The Complexities of Consent to Personal Jurisdiction," The Judges' Book: Vol. 10, Article 3.
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/judgesbook/vol10/iss1/3