No. 24-6556

Edward Farley v. Ubiratan Marinho, Jr., et al.

Lower Court: New Hampshire
Docketed: 2025-02-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights due-process federal-jurisdiction minimum-contacts nonresident-defendant personal-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-04-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the New Hampshire Supreme Court misapprehend the two-part test for federal due process jurisdiction in determining personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant?

Question Presented (from Petition)

1Did the New Hampshire Supreme Court misapprehend the two-part test for federal due process jurisdiction is a way to determine if a state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant? The test is based on the idea that a defendant must have minimum contacts with the state and it must be reasonable to require them to defend the lawsuit. 2By misapprehending the two-part test for federal due process jurisdiction, did the New Hampshire Supreme Court deny the Petitioner his right for due process? 2

Docket Entries

2025-07-31
Case considered closed.
2025-04-21
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until May 12, 2025, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2025-04-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2025.
2025-02-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 14, 2025)

Attorneys

Edward Farley
Edward Farley — Petitioner
Edward Farley — Petitioner