This Comment is focused upon the errors that may result from the confusion surrounding the question of jurisdictional limitations. It is suggested that such confusion is the natural result of the prevailing concern of courts with the extreme limits of permissible jurisdiction, and that this confusion has so clouded the basic issues that erroneous results have been reached in more routine cases that do not even approach those limits-the "easy" cases. Cases decided in the past few years indicate that these erroneous results occur most often in three areas. Following a brief examination of the body of law and theory applicable to jurisdiction over nonresidents, each of those areas will be examined in some detail. While it is not suggested that these are the only areas in which confusion has led courts to overlook basic considerations, they are representative of the problems and do serve to expose a dangerous trend in the determination of jurisdictional limits.
Michigan Law Review,
Long-Arm and Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction and the Fundamental Test of Fairness,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol69/iss2/6