In 2017 in Bristol Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the United States Supreme Court narrowed the concept of personal jurisdiction. Bristol Meyers requires that the state where the plaintiff brings suit must have some affiliation with an act or occurrence that forms the controversy. Basically, whatever bad happened, some of it must have occurred in the state where the plaintiff has sued.
Why do companies have some employees sign noncompetition agreements and nonsolicitation agreements? Well, it's simple. So they can protect their business, its goodwill, income, the business owners' livelihood, and all of things that make the business valuable.
All lawyers should include basic provisions in contracts for their clients. One basic provision designates or chooses the state's law that applies. If your client has the bargaining power, and is located in Connecticut, well, you choose Connecticut. But the language you use in your "choice of law" provision is critical. Simply stating that, for example, "Connecticut law governs the interpretation and enforcement of this agreement" will not guarantee that Connecticut law applies to extra-contractual torts.
The powerball jackpot is all the buzz. Besides thinking - just a little - about what I'd do with the money, I am also thinking about contracts to share in the winnings. You see, the alumni Facebook page for my college (Go Bonas!) has a feed where alumni purchase a ticket from their state and post it to the page, and agree to share the winnings. One alumnus posted the terms of the "sharing" agreement:
Back to the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. v. SKF USA, Inc., a fun UCC read for any law junky. You can read my first post on this case here. Manufacturers (if there are any left in Connecticut...) should pay attention to this case. This case is really, really interesting.