Sternberg v. O'Neil

In Sternberg v. O'Neil, 550 A.2d 1105 (Del. 1988) the Delaware Supreme Court recognized the dispute between the holding in Gold Issue and the "minimum contacts" analysis required under International Shoe. However, the court determined that the two theories "complement one another and are neither inconsistent nor mutually exclusive." Id. at 1110. The court described two forms of consent to jurisdiction: implied and express. Id. The court then determined that a "minimum contacts" analysis is applicable "in the absence of any other basis for the exercise of jurisdiction." Id. at 1111. The court took the view that "a state still has power to exercise general judicial jurisdiction over a foreign corporation which has expressly consented to the exercise of such jurisdiction," and thus no "minimum contacts" analysis is necessary. Id. at 1111, 1117. Thus, the court held that the Delaware court properly exercised jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation which had appointed an agent to receive service of process as a condition to conducting business in Delaware. Id.