Abstract
In Rush v. Savchuk, the United States Supreme Court held that quasi in rem jurisdiction based on attachment of an insurer's obligation to defend and indemnify the defendant does not comport with due process if the defendant has no contacts with the forum state independent of those of the insurer. Rush standardized the due process analysis to be made whenever a state court attempts to extend jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: the relationship among the defendant, the litigation and the forum is the exclusive focus. Further, Rush made moot the question whether the action heretofore would have been classified as in personam, quasi in rem or in rem." Finally, in light of Justice Brennan's dissent, it is now clear that the fairness analysis prescribed by International Shoe Co. v. Washington is to be made solely with regard to the defendant's contacts with the forum state and is not to be subjectively determined in each case.
Recommended Citation
Sorensen, Peter
(1981)
"Putting the Djinni Back in the Bottle:
Rush v. Savchuk and the Demise of
Setder Jurisdiction,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1981:
No.
3, Article 8.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1981/iss3/8