← All Authorities
United States Leading Case jurisdiction

Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz

471 U.S. 462 (1985)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year1985
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A defendant who purposefully directs activities at forum residents may be subject to specific personal jurisdiction if the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.

Key Principle

A defendant who purposefully directs activities at forum residents may be subject to specific jurisdiction if the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz