A term that often comes up in Israeli litigation is מירב הזיקות, which determines jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in the U.S. is more complicated than it is in tiny little Israel. In the U.S. there are many levels and considerations: the state courts encompass county courts, appellate courts and each state has its own Supreme Court; then the federal courts encompass district courts, circuit courts of appeal and the (federal) Supreme Court. Then there’s in personam jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, crossing state lines (long-arm statutes), etc., etc., etc. The landmark case on jurisdiction (back in 1945) – International Shoe v. Washington – had far-reaching implications. It turned on the “minimum contacts” that the company had to have had in any particular place in order to establish jurisdiction.
Israeli law uses the same concept to establish jurisdiction, but approaches it from the opposite direction: maximum contacts. It is often advisable to use “maximum connections” because with the way things are written in Hebrew, the word “contacts” often doesn’t work.
