Personal jurisdiction is the court's power over the defendant, as opposed to its power over the subject of the suit. A judgment entered without it is open to attack. The modern test asks whether the defendant has enough connection to the forum state that being sued there is consistent with fair play and substantial justice. The old idea that power came from physically seizing a person or their property inside the state has been replaced by a contacts analysis, though presence in the state when served still works.
Rule
- Two steps. The forum's long arm statute must authorize jurisdiction, and the exercise must satisfy due process.
- Minimum contacts. The defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, so that being haled into court there is foreseeable.
- Specific jurisdiction. The claim must arise out of or relate to those contacts.
- General jurisdiction. Available where the defendant is essentially at home, which for an individual is the domicile and for a corporation is the place of incorporation and the principal place of business.
- Reasonableness. Courts also weigh the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest, the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, and the interstate judicial system's interest in efficiency.
- Other bases. Consent, waiver, and personal service while physically present in the state.
Leading cases
- Pennoyer v. Neff: jurisdiction originally rested on the state's physical power over persons and property within its borders.
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington: the modern standard, requiring minimum contacts such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson: a consumer driving a car into a state does not create contacts for the seller, because the defendant itself must purposefully reach the forum.
- Daimler AG v. Bauman: general jurisdiction is limited to forums where the corporation is essentially at home, not merely wherever it does substantial business.
Where students go wrong
The first mistake is skipping the long arm statute. Due process is the ceiling, not the whole analysis, and some states deliberately reach less far than the Constitution allows.
The second is confusing foreseeability of the product arriving with purposeful availment. What must be foreseeable is being sued there, and that requires the defendant's own conduct aimed at the forum.
The third is calling every substantial business presence general jurisdiction. After the at home cases that label is reserved for a very small number of forums, so most disputes now turn on specific jurisdiction.
FAQ
What is the difference between specific and general jurisdiction?
Specific jurisdiction requires the claim to arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. General jurisdiction allows any claim, but only where the defendant is essentially at home.
Can a defendant be sued where it merely has a website?
Not by itself. Courts ask whether the site targeted the forum and produced actual transactions or contacts there, rather than being passively accessible everywhere.
Can personal jurisdiction be waived?
Yes. It is a personal right. A defendant who fails to raise the objection in its first response, or who agreed to a forum selection clause, has given it up.
Related terms
Working through this in your own casebook takes longer than reading it here. Syllume starts from your syllabus and turns each assigned case into a brief you can study from.