Case (year)
Important Take-Aways From Cases
3 Types of Personal Jurisdiction
In Personam
In Rem
Quasi In Rem
(Against the person)
(Against the thing)
(As if against the thing)
P sues D personally and D consents to
Can determine owner of specific
State ct seizes the D’s property\
jurisdiction or receives proper
property in forum state relative to
Can determine owner of prop
service\ all of D’s assets in play
everyone in the world
between parties in lawsuit
Min contacts test
Int Shoe did not address if min contacts apply??
Int. Shoe (1945)
Specific Jurisdiction
General Jurisdiction
 Single or limited contact with state  D has continuous & systematic
(required or not spec jurisdiction)
presence in forum state (now
2 Ways a D’s contacts with forum
“at home”)
state may lead to personal
 D’s contact is deliberate
jurisdiction (PJ)
 P’s claim arises out of that contact  P’s claim does not arise out of
those contacts with F State
Due Process Clause  “The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to binding judgments of a
forum with which he has established no meaningful “contacts, ties or relations”.
 Courts exercise of PJ is ok if D has such min contacts with forum so that jurisdiction does not offend
traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice
Two requirements for PJ: (1) State’s Long-arm Statute
(2) Permitted under Constitution
McGee (1957)
(Due Process Clause)
D’s deliberate in-state contact was
 P’s interest in suing in forum state
just one thing to consider, also need  Availability of witnesses in F state
to consider other factors:
 Forum State’s interest in providing a remedy
 Extent to which D would be inconvenienced
 Modern trans & communication have made it far less burdensome for party sued to defend himself in a state
where he engages in economic activity
Pennoyer (1877)
Hanson (1958)
 Court moved away from McGees multi-factored analysis, refocused back on Int Shoe’s deliberate contacts
 The contact between the D and the forum state must result from the defendant’s purposeful availment
 To establish Specific Jurisdiction, a P’s claim has to arise out of the D’s contact with the forum state
 Essential in each case that there be some act by which the D “purposely avails itself of the privilege of
conducting business within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”.
 “When D purposely avails itself of the privilege, it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there” an can
proactively act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation.
Shaffer (1977)
(stock case)
Court clarified open question about
Court finally resolves the question around in-rem and quasi in-rem and
minimum contacts and in-rem and
minimum contacts (which wasn’t answered in Int Shoe). Min Contacts
quasi in-rem
DO need to be considered for In Rem and Quasi In Rem also!!
 “Fair Warning” that particular activity may subject them to jurisdiction in that forum
WW Volkswagon Reaffirmed Hanson’s holding that specific jurisdiction is not permissible unless the D has had deliberate,
voluntary contacts with the forum state. A strong showing of reasonableness will not suffice.
(1980)
Purpose of Min Contacts Test:
Purposeful
availment must
be by the D, not
the consumer
ONLY after Min Contacts are
established, THEN
Reasonableness or Fairness of
Asserting PJ over D is assessed:
 Protect D against burden of
 Ensure states do not reach
litigating in distant or
beyond limits imposed by status
inconvenient forum
as coequal sovereigns
Burden on D will always be A primary concern, but will need to be
considered in light of other relevant factors, including:
 Forum states interest in adjudicating
 P’s interest in proceeding in convenient & effective relief
 Interstate judicial systems interest in most efficient resolution
 Shared interest of states in furthering substantive social policies
 Neither reasonableness without min contacts nor min contacts without reasonableness will suffice for PJ
 Rejected concept of Foreseeability that it’s likely a product will find itself in the forum state
 Rather, it is the D’s conduct & connection with the forum state as such that he should reasonably anticipate
being haled into court there.
 The Due Process Clause “gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential D’s to
structure their primary conduct with some min assurance as to where that conduct will & will not render
them liable to suit.”
Justice Brennan’s dissent: He believes min contacts must exist among the parties, contested transaction and
the forum. The contacts between any two of these should not be determinative.
Keeton (1984)
 Due process considerations only apply to the D
 “Fair Warning” out of Shaffer can be satisfied if D has “purposely directed” his activities at residents of FState
 AND litigation results from alleged injuries that “arise out of or relate to” those activities
Calder (1984)
Burger King
(1985)
Intentional Torts and PJ:
 D does not have to have been in the forum state, to have created purposeful contacts
o Caldor Effect Test: Caused an effect in forum state results in purposeful availment (still used today)
 Min contacts must be created by D himself, unilateral activity of another party is not an appropr consideration
when determining whether D has suff contacts to justify an assert of jurisdiction
 Mere injury to a forum resident is an insufficient connection to the forum for min contacts, the proper
question is not whether the P experienced a particular injury or effect in the forum but whether the D’s
conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way
 Contacts and fairness are different parts of the Int Shoe test and Contacts come FIRST
 Fairness Test: D needs to show that it is so gravely inconvenient that you’re at a severe disadvantage
 Answered the question “When can a contractual relationship give rise to PJ in a distant forum?
 “Purposeful availment”
 Expansion of minimum contacts test (Int Shoe)
 BK laid the groundwork for Asahi, where “purposeful act” requirement was a touchstone for evaluating
whether reasonableness standard was satisfied.
 A D who has purposefully directed his activity at forum residents & seeks to defeat jurisdiction, must present
a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.
The court must look to the circumstances of the commercial relationship when evaluating PJ:
 Negotiation of the contract
 Were negotiations directed towards the forum
state?
 Provisions in the contract itself
 Did the contract involve ongoing obligations to the
 Ensuing experience under the contract
forum state?
 Choice of Law clause
 Duration of the contract?
 Forum Selection clause
Asahi Metal
(1987)
Stream of
Commerce
Didn’t purposely
availed itself?
O’Connor Test: The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the D
purposefully directed towards the forum state. More could include: designing product for market in forum
state, marketing in FS, marketing product through distributor in the forum state
Brennan Test: As long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the
forum state (it’s regularly sold there and D knows about it), the possibility of a lawsuit cannot come as a
surprise. Nor will the litigation present a burden of a lawsuit for which there is no corresponding benefit.
Judge Stevens: Courts should focus on factors such as the volume of the D’s sales in the state and the hazardous
nature of the product at issue.
Burnham (1990)
(Divorce)
Split again
Goodyear (2011)
McIntyre (2011)
Transient jurisdiction: Only kind you don’t need min contacts test for
 Due Process permits personal jurisdiction based solely on personal service within the forum state
 Scalia +3: Traditional bases when you’re served is good on its own due to its pedigree
 Brennan +3: Traditional bases do not matter, pedigree doesn’t matter, we must use Int Shoe
Various Test to support specific jurisdiction
“But For” test: but for D’s in-state
Evidence test: D’s in state contacts
Some kind of relationship
contacts, the claim would not have
are of such character that they
between claim and the D’s
arisen
would be used as evidence in case
contacts
First introduction of: “Corp D’s contacts must be “sufficiently extensive”, so much so that the company is
essentially AT HOME in the forum state (gen jurisdiction). Continuous & systematic: no longer the standard for
General Jurisdiction.
 Kennedy +3: Adopt O’Connor approach, have to show that the English co intended to serve the NJ market
 Breyer & Alito: No jurisdiction in NJ, but don’t choose a test between the other 2
Split again /
Apply both tests
Walden (2014)
(Security seizes
their cash)
Daimler (2014)
 Justice Ginsberg: Dissenting, Looks like the Brennan approach, if D put their product into the stream of
commerce, and had knowledge it could end up in the forum state, then they can be held to account there.
 Court draws distinction between targeting an effect in the forum and targeting an individual who happens to
live in the forum
 No “effects jurisdiction”
 Contacts were not directed towards the forum, just the resident of the forum. (Happenstance)
Significantly raised the bar for courts  Court’s holding impacted Int Shoe’s “systematic & continuous”
hearing cases involving foreign
 Court can assert gen jurisdiction over corp if the corp’s affiliations
corporations
with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render
the corp “at home” in the state
Where are they “At Home”??
Corporations
 State of incorporation
 Principal place of business (“nerve center”)
 Can be multiple states
 Muscle test is not valid
Individuals
 Based on Domicile
 Can only be one
BMS (2017)
 Issue is one of “relatedness”
 Test for relatedness: Plaintiff’s claim must arise from or relate to the forum.
 For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and
specific claim at issue.
 Narrowed circumstances when courts may exercise specific jurisdiction over OOS Defs.
Ford (2021)
“Arise out of or RELATE to”
 The action must arise out of or relate to D’s contacts w/ Forum State


1. SINGLE (OR SPORADIC) CONTACT WITH FORUM STATE: Not enough, unless the claim arises from that contact, e.g., car accident
in-state, issuance of insurance policy to resident. This jurisdiction is called “specific” jurisdiction.
2. CLAIM UNRELATED TO CONTACT WITH FORUM STATE: The defendant’s contact with the forum state must be so systematic and
continuous as to make the defendant essentially “at home” in the forum state in order to subject the defendant to forum state
jurisdiction (this is called “general” jurisdiction).
3. TORT CLAIMS: Jurisdiction exists if either:
a. The defendant (or her agent) commits a tortious act inside the forum, and the cause of action arises from that act; or
b. The defendant’s conduct out-of-state causes foreseeable injurious consequence in the forum.
4. PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: The defendant must have made an effort to reach the forum state’s market, not merely by injecting
the product into the stream of commerce, but by some act purposefully directed toward the forum state, e.g., advertising aimed at
forum state market.
N.B.:: A state always has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident natural-person defendant if the defendant is served with process while
she’s in the state, no matter how briefly. Burnham v. Superior Court (1990).