forum clause in Louisiana

2000Further, the Supreme Court stated that "in light of present-day commercial realities and expanding international trade we conclude that the forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside." Id.

1998M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972). [4] In invalidating the forum clause in the present case, the lower court observed that "it prevents Louisiana residents from bring[ing] tort actions in the State of Louisiana, which is against public policy.

2005International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) is the landmark decision regarding corporate amenability to personal jurisdiction because it shifted the jurisdictional basis from a defendant's presence in the forum to an analysis of the relationship between a defendant's contacts with the forum and the plaintiff's claim.

2005International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) is the landmark decision regarding corporate amenability to personal jurisdiction because it shifted the jurisdictional basis from a defendant's presence in the forum to an analysis of the relationship between a defendant's contacts with the forum and the plaintiff's claim.

2006The Supreme Court explained in Shute that its earlier decision in The Bremen, supra, stands for the proposition that, ... even where the forum clause establishes a remote forum for resolution of conflicts, “the party claiming [unfairness] should bear a heavy burden of proof.’’[Emphasis added.] Id., 499 U.S. at 592 , 111 S.Ct. at 1526 ; See also Smith v. Doe, 991 F.Supp. 781, 784 (E.D.La.1998); Digital Enterprises, Inc. v. Arch Telecom, Inc., 95-30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/95) , 658 So.2d 20 and Pique’-Wein stein-Pique’ Architects, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation, 99-1231 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/00) , 76

2006The Supreme Court explained in Shute that its earlier decision in The Bremen, supra, stands for the proposition that, ... even where the forum clause establishes a remote forum for resolution of conflicts, “the party claiming [unfairness] should bear a heavy burden of proof.’’[Emphasis added.] Id., 499 U.S. at 592 , 111 S.Ct. at 1526 ; See also Smith v. Doe, 991 F.Supp. 781, 784 (E.D.La.1998); Digital Enterprises, Inc. v. Arch Telecom, Inc., 95-30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/95) , 658 So.2d 20 and Pique’-Wein stein-Pique’ Architects, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation, 99-1231 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/00) , 76

2006The Supreme Court explained in Shute that its earlier decision in The Bremen, supra, stands for the proposition that, ... even where the forum clause establishes a remote forum for resolution of conflicts, “the party claiming [unfairness] should bear a heavy burden of proof.’’[Emphasis added.] Id., 499 U.S. at 592 , 111 S.Ct. at 1526 ; See also Smith v. Doe, 991 F.Supp. 781, 784 (E.D.La.1998); Digital Enterprises, Inc. v. Arch Telecom, Inc., 95-30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/95) , 658 So.2d 20 and Pique’-Wein stein-Pique’ Architects, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation, 99-1231 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/00) , 76

2006The Supreme Court explained in Shute that its earlier decision in The Bremen, supra, stands for the proposition that, ... even where the forum clause establishes a remote forum for resolution of conflicts, “the party claiming [unfairness] should bear a heavy burden of proof.’’[Emphasis added.] Id., 499 U.S. at 592 , 111 S.Ct. at 1526 ; See also Smith v. Doe, 991 F.Supp. 781, 784 (E.D.La.1998); Digital Enterprises, Inc. v. Arch Telecom, Inc., 95-30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/95) , 658 So.2d 20 and Pique’-Wein stein-Pique’ Architects, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation, 99-1231 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/00) , 76

2006The Supreme Court explained in Shute that its earlier decision in The Bremen, supra, stands for the proposition that, ... even where the forum clause establishes a remote forum for resolution of conflicts, “the party claiming [unfairness] should bear a heavy burden of proof.’’[Emphasis added.] Id., 499 U.S. at 592 , 111 S.Ct. at 1526 ; See also Smith v. Doe, 991 F.Supp. 781, 784 (E.D.La.1998); Digital Enterprises, Inc. v. Arch Telecom, Inc., 95-30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/95) , 658 So.2d 20 and Pique’-Wein stein-Pique’ Architects, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation, 99-1231 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/00) , 76

2004Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003)(holding question of whether contract prohibited or permitted arbitration of class action was for arbitrator to decide); PacifiCare Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 , 123 S.Ct. 1531 , 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003)(holding question of enforceability of arbitration provision prohibiting punitive damages was for the arbitrator to decide); Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002)(holding question regarding National Association of Securities Dealers' six year statute of limitation rule (the

2004Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003)(holding question of whether contract prohibited or permitted arbitration of class action was for arbitrator to decide); PacifiCare Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 , 123 S.Ct. 1531 , 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003)(holding question of enforceability of arbitration provision prohibiting punitive damages was for the arbitrator to decide); Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002)(holding question regarding National Association of Securities Dealers' six year statute of limitation rule (the

2004Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003)(holding question of whether contract prohibited or permitted arbitration of class action was for arbitrator to decide); PacifiCare Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 , 123 S.Ct. 1531 , 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003)(holding question of enforceability of arbitration provision prohibiting punitive damages was for the arbitrator to decide); Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002)(holding question regarding National Association of Securities Dealers' six year statute of limitation rule (the

2004Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003)(holding question of whether contract prohibited or permitted arbitration of class action was for arbitrator to decide); PacifiCare Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 , 123 S.Ct. 1531 , 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003)(holding question of enforceability of arbitration provision prohibiting punitive damages was for the arbitrator to decide); Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002)(holding question regarding National Association of Securities Dealers' six year statute of limitation rule (the

2004Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003)(holding question of whether contract prohibited or permitted arbitration of class action was for arbitrator to decide); PacifiCare Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 , 123 S.Ct. 1531 , 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003)(holding question of enforceability of arbitration provision prohibiting punitive damages was for the arbitrator to decide); Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002)(holding question regarding National Association of Securities Dealers' six year statute of limitation rule (the

2004Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003)(holding question of whether contract prohibited or permitted arbitration of class action was for arbitrator to decide); PacifiCare Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 , 123 S.Ct. 1531 , 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003)(holding question of enforceability of arbitration provision prohibiting punitive damages was for the arbitrator to decide); Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002)(holding question regarding National Association of Securities Dealers' six year statute of limitation rule (the

2000"Forum analysis divides government property into three categories: public fora, designated public fora, and nonpublic fora." Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972 , 976 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1804 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1999). [7][8] A traditional public forum, such as a public park or sidewalk, is a place "that has traditionally been available for public expression." International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee 505 U.S. 672 , 678 , 112 S.Ct. 2701 , 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (ISKCON).

2000"Forum analysis divides government property into three categories: public fora, designated public fora, and nonpublic fora." Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972 , 976 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1804 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1999). [7][8] A traditional public forum, such as a public park or sidewalk, is a place "that has traditionally been available for public expression." International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee 505 U.S. 672 , 678 , 112 S.Ct. 2701 , 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (ISKCON).

2000"Forum analysis divides government property into three categories: public fora, designated public fora, and nonpublic fora." Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972 , 976 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1804 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1999). [7][8] A traditional public forum, such as a public park or sidewalk, is a place "that has traditionally been available for public expression." International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee 505 U.S. 672 , 678 , 112 S.Ct. 2701 , 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (ISKCON).

2000"Forum analysis divides government property into three categories: public fora, designated public fora, and nonpublic fora." Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972 , 976 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1804 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1999). [7][8] A traditional public forum, such as a public park or sidewalk, is a place "that has traditionally been available for public expression." International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee 505 U.S. 672 , 678 , 112 S.Ct. 2701 , 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (ISKCON).

2000"Forum analysis divides government property into three categories: public fora, designated public fora, and nonpublic fora." Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972 , 976 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1804 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1999). [7][8] A traditional public forum, such as a public park or sidewalk, is a place "that has traditionally been available for public expression." International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee 505 U.S. 672 , 678 , 112 S.Ct. 2701 , 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (ISKCON).

1990Andrade, supra .

1988We granted a writ to review the court of appeal's holding that the statutory rule obliging the Collector to seek review in a particular forum is a rule of venue, not jurisdiction. 504 So.2d 868 .

1965I also agree that under LSA-R.S. 13:3471, as amended by Act 32 of 1960, the courts of Louisiana are permitted to exercise the full potential of jurisdiction, in personam, over foreign corporations allowed by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 , and McGee v. International Life Insurance Company, 355 U.S. 220 , 78 S.Ct. 199 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 .

1965I also agree that under LSA-R.S. 13:3471, as amended by Act 32 of 1960, the courts of Louisiana are permitted to exercise the full potential of jurisdiction, in personam, over foreign corporations allowed by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 , and McGee v. International Life Insurance Company, 355 U.S. 220 , 78 S.Ct. 199 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 .