contacts for the purposes of assessing whether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction consistent with due process, or whether a court can apply a state’s own law under choice-of-law analysis to a case consistent with due process. See Adventure Communications, 191 F.3d at 436 (noting a substantial overlap in analysis); Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 1909, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (stating that due process “requires some definite link, some minimum connection, between state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax”). American Charities, 221 F.3d at 1216 (underlining added; footnote omitted). In sum, beyond any reasonable argument, the Florida Holocaust Victims Insurance Act is subject to review under the jurisdictional principle th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). These and other such cases leave no doubt
holding that when mississippi adopted a statute modeled after a georgia enactment decisions of the georgia courts did not bind mississippi courts in interpretation of the statute recognizing that under georgia law attorneys fees are allowed where authorized by statute or contract holding there was no jurisdiction in georgia in an action on a contract entered outside georgia by parties from outside georgia where the only georgia contact was that the contract called for the delivery of cargo in georgia recognizing twoyear statute of limitations for section 1981 claims filed in federal court in georgia holding unconstitutional the provision in a georgia abortion statute limiting abortions to georgia residents