Minn. Litigants May Soon Have Clarity On Jurisdiction

Law360 (November 3, 2020, 5:36 PM EST) -- In Backe v. A.W. Keuttel & Sons, a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, the court refused to consider the timing of an out-of-state company's minimum contacts with the state, and held that specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state company was proper, even though the company had not purposefully availed itself to Minnesota for over three decades.[1]

In asbestos litigation, nonresident companies often find themselves defending cases in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions without regard to whether the parties have sufficient contacts with the chosen jurisdiction. Additionally, in asbestos and other toxic tort cases, illnesses typically do not manifest themselves until decades after a claimed...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!


Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!