My last post was a slightly irreverent look at the Supreme Court's recent corporate-nerve-center-as-principal-place-of-business decision in Hertz v. Friend.
Max Kennerly in his Litigation & Trial blog takes a more scholarly look at the implications of the Hertz decision. He notes, correctly, that there was an element of "administrative simplicity" inherent in the court's decision. And there is, I suppose, a virtue in that. There's now undeniably one rule that should not be difficult to apply in practice.
If you believe that federal courts should have more power to decide cases, you'll look at that one way. If you think that state courts are the preferred forum, you'll probably think differently. Whatever your belief, it's what all litigators now must deal with. And note, too, that even though the Court's decision was made in the context of an employment litigation, it will govern all business-related cases that involve the question whether the court can assert diversity jurisdiction, directly or through removal, over a corporation.