Despite the very few law cases and citations I acquainted myself with, it seems one can detect what seems to be a foolproof formula that can work without a need for much reasoning for applying constitutional minimum contact in situations like mine with that defendant.It seems that ,generally ,wherever you find a continuous obligation contact between the defendant and the forum state that is for the defendant's financial benefit then you have a valid constitutional minimum contact.
I wonder how would that judge explain not seeing such an obvious thing
Having that in addition to the 15 USC & 78aa you got yourself a personal jurisdiction on that defendant.What is left? The fair play and justice argument?If the reasoning of a person making that objection doesn't tell him that he is very wrong, a comparison with many easy to find cases should.
No comments:
Post a Comment