|
Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger was a case out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in which the court developed a reasoned framework to determine the proper exercise of personal jurisdiction in cases involving activity in cyberspace. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant whose website was accessible to New York residents. ==Background== The rise of the Internet has posed difficulties for courts trying to determine the proper exercise of jurisdiction. In applying traditional doctrines, courts have arrived at inconsistent and sometimes contradictory results.〔(PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND CYBERSPACE: ESTABLISHING PRECEDENT IN A BORDERLESS ERA, Nagy, 1998 )〕 The established test for determining personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant asks a court to evaluate whether the activity in question was purposefully directed toward the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not violate the defendant's due process rights. The second prong of the test requires that the defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that he/she could reasonably anticipate being called into court there.〔See Maritz, Inc. v. CyberGold, Inc. 947 F. Supp. at 1329.〕 , Where the Internet is concerned, jurisdictional issues are more difficult. Most Internet users are unaware that they have transcended state borders and are subject to the jurisdiction of a different state. Thus, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an Internet user may not comport with due process, since a user cannot purposefully avail himself of a particular jurisdiction if he has no indication of where is he in cyberspace. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|