Court Opinion

ID: 9747947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:44:44.087109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:29.302910
License: Public Domain

Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
dissenting.
In all respects, I wholeheartedly join in Justice Hoens’s thoughtful, comprehensive and scholarly dissent. I write separately, however, solely to urge explicitly a point implied in Justice Hoens’s dissent.
*100The majority’s decision implicates and, in large and sweeping swaths, upends established notions of constitutional decision making that form the bedrock of our federal system. In so doing, it offends those core federalist concepts that rightly and'prudentially limit the exercise of any one state’s judicial power via the invocation of long-arm jurisprudence. It, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. Because the majority “has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with” settled federal constitutional principles, Swp.Ct. R. 10(b), creates a new, insubstantial, and meaningless standard for the unbounded exercise of long-arm jurisdiction, and disturbs the careful balance that limits the exercise of judicial power between and among the several states, this decision is ripe for review and correction by the Supreme Court of the United States.
For affirmance and remandment—Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN and WALLACE—5.
For reversal—Justices RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS—2.