Also known as: sufficiently connected · nexus
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A relationship or link between a person or activity and a jurisdiction, interest, or governmental objective that is adequate to trigger constitutional protections or to sustain regulatory conditions.
Summit Bank sought a permit to expand its branch. The city required dedication of a strip for a public greenway. The bank showed that the expansion would generate only modest additional traffic. Because the dedication lacked rough proportionality to that limited impact, the condition could not stand.
Sierra Solutions applied for a beachfront development permit. The county conditioned approval on an easement allowing public access across the property. The easement did not mitigate any specific harm caused by the project, so the condition failed.
Spectrum Financial sought a rezoning to build offices. The city refused the permit unless the firm paid a large sum for off-site traffic improvements. The payment demand lacked the required connection to the project's actual effects, rendering the denial a taking.
Samuel Soto, a Mexican citizen, owned a home in Mexico searched by U.S. agents. He had never lived in or visited the United States. Because he lacked sufficient connection to the national community, he could not invoke Fourth Amendment protections.
Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez is a citizen and resident of Mexico. He is believed by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency to be one of the leaders of a large and violent organization in Mexico that smuggles narcotics into the United States. Based on a complaint charging him with narcotics-related offenses, the Government obtained a warrant for his arrest on August 3, 1985. In January 1986, Mexican police officers, after discussions with United States marshals, apprehended Verdugo-Urquidez in Mexico and transported him to the United States Border Patrol station in Calexico, California. There, United States marshals arrested respondent and eventually moved him to a correctional center in San Diego, California, where he remains incarcerated pending trial. Respondent subsequently was convicted in a separate prosecution for the kidnaping and torture-murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar. Following respondent's arrest, Terry Bowen, a DEA agent assigned to the Calexico DEA office, decided to arrange for searches of Verdugo-Urquidez's Mexican residences located in Mexicali and San Felipe. Bowen believed the searches would reveal evidence related to respondent's alleged narcotics trafficking activities. Bowen telephoned Walter White, the Assistant Special Agent in charge of the DEA office in Mexico City, and asked him to seek authorization for the search from the Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police. After several attempts to reach high ranking Mexican officials, White eventually contacted the Director General, who authorized the searches and promised the cooperation of Mexican authorities. DEA agents working in concert with officers of the MFJP searched respondent's properties in Mexicali and San Felipe and seized documents. In particular, the search of the Mexicali residence uncovered a tally sheet, which the Government believes reflects the quantities of marijuana smuggled by Verdugo-Urquidez into the United States. The District Court granted respondent's motion to suppress evidence seized during the searches. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSynergy Systems faced a large punitive damages award in a bad-faith insurance case. The award rested partly on the insurer's nationwide practices unrelated to the plaintiff's claim. The court required a sufficient connection between the out-of-state conduct and the harm before allowing the full amount.
In 1981, Curtis Campbell was driving with his wife Inez in Cache County, Utah, when he attempted to pass six vans on a two-lane highway. This caused an oncoming driver, Todd Ospital, to swerve onto the shoulder, lose control, and collide with a vehicle driven by Robert G. Slawson and his wife, killing Ospital and permanently disabling Slawson. Campbell's insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, declined settlement offers of the $50,000 policy limit from Slawson and Ospital's estate despite early investigations indicating Campbell's fault and advice from its own adjuster. A jury in the underlying tort actions found Campbell 100 percent at fault and returned a judgment of $185,849 against him. State Farm refused to pay the $135,849 excess over policy limits or post a supersedeas bond. The Campbells then entered an agreement with Slawson and Ospital's estate under which the claimants would not seek satisfaction of the judgment in exchange for the Campbells pursuing a bad-faith action against State Farm, being represented by the claimants' attorneys, and assigning 90 percent of any recovery to them. The Campbells sued State Farm for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court bifurcated the case into two phases before separate juries. In phase one the jury found State Farm's refusal to settle unreasonable. In phase two the jury heard evidence that State Farm's decision was part of a nationwide Performance, Planning and Review policy implemented since 1979 to cap payouts and meet corporate profit goals, including testimony from former Utah employees and experts about practices in multiple states over twenty years. The jury awarded $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the compensatory award to $1 million and the punitive award to $25 million. Both sides appealed. The Utah Supreme Court reinstated the $145 million punitive damages award after applying the three guideposts from BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore and relying on the nationwide evidence, State Farm's wealth, and the statistical likelihood of punishment in only one of 50,000 cases. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSebastian Santos worked selling newspapers. The publisher treated him as an independent contractor. The Board examined whether the economic realities created a sufficient connection of control and dependence to classify him as an employee under the labor statute.
The National Labor Relations Board initiated proceedings after Los Angeles Newsboys Local Industrial Union No. 75 filed four petitions for investigation and certification regarding newsboys distributing papers for four Los Angeles daily newspapers published by the respondents, including Hearst Publications, Inc. Hearings were held in a consolidated proceeding, after which the Board found that the regular full-time newsboys were employees under the Act, designated appropriate units, and ordered elections. The union was selected as representative by majorities of the eligible newsboys and was certified. When the respondents refused to bargain, the Board instituted proceedings under section 10 of the Act, held a hearing, found violations of sections 8(1) and 8(5), and ordered the respondents to cease and desist and to bargain collectively. Upon the respondents' petitions for review and the Board's petitions for enforcement, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with one judge dissenting, set aside the Board's orders. The court rejected the Board's analysis, independently examined whether the newsboys were employees, applied common-law standards, and concluded they were not. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question. The findings showed that the newsboys, generally mature men dependent on their sales for support, worked full-time at established spots under the supervision of district managers employed by the publishers. The publishers fixed the prices at which the newsboys bought and sold the papers, provided credit for papers, allowed returns for unsold copies, and controlled the allocation of papers and sales areas. District managers assigned spots, prescribed hours, and enforced standards through sanctions including dismissal. The newsboys received compensation as the difference between purchase and sale prices, with the publishers effectively controlling their earnings. They formed stable groups with little turnover, unlike casual bootjackers. Checkmen among them performed additional duties for small salaries. The Board found the newsboys integral to the publishers' distribution system.
View caseA non-citizen must demonstrate that he or she is part of the national community or has otherwise developed sufficient connection with the country to be considered part of that community. Mere presence during a criminal investigation or prosecution does not automatically create that link.
The government must show an essential nexus between the permit condition and a legitimate interest that would justify denying the permit outright. The condition must also be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the development.
Yes. The Nollan/Dolan standards apply to demands for money as well as dedications of real property. Refusal to issue a permit because the applicant rejects an unsupported monetary condition constitutes a taking.
The government must demonstrate that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impact of the proposed development.
…the Court in Hanson determined that the defendant over which personal jurisdiction was claimed had not committed any acts sufficiently connected to the State to justify jurisdiction under the International Shoe standard. : Cf. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 59, Comment a (possible inconsistency between…