specific jurisdiction essay

What are General and Specific Personal Jurisdiction?

by uslawessentials | Jul 7, 2017 | Civil Procedure , video , What does . . . mean? | 0 comments

General and specific personal jurisdiction are two types of personal jurisdiction in the United States.  Below we’ll discuss personal jurisdiction generally, how personal jurisdiction is different from subject matter jurisdiction, and the difference between general and specific personal jurisdiction.  You can also find a short video with a quiz.

What is Personal Jurisdiction?

Personal jurisdiction means power over a party.  There are 50 different states in the United States.  If a plaintiff wants to sue a defendant , she will need to sue in a state that has power over the defendant.  If we say a state has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, we mean that courts located in that state have power over the defendant.

For example, if Patty sues David in New York, we need to know whether a New York court has the authority to cause David to appear in court and to enter a judgment against him.   If David is from another state and has no connection with New York, the New York court probably lacks personal jurisdiction over David.  Patty would have to sue him in a different state.

How is Personal Jurisdiction Different From Subject Matter Jurisdiction?

Personal jurisdiction is different from subject matter jurisdiction because subject matter jurisdiction tells us whether a court has the power to hear a certain type of case.  For example, if parties are diverse , and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, then a federal court should have jurisdiction over the case.

But subject matter jurisdiction does not tell us whether a federal court in New York has power over the parties in the case.  If there is no personal jurisdiction in New York over the defendant, then the plaintiff must choose a court in a different state that does have personal jurisdiction.

General Jurisdiction vs. Specific Jurisdiction

US courts distinguish between general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction.

General jurisdiction means a state where a person can be sued for any claim, regardless of where the actions underlying the claim occurred.  A court may assert general personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is “home”.

For example, if David permanently resides in Pennsylvania, then Pennsylvania will have personal jurisdiction over David for actions he commits anywhere.  Pennsylvania courts may assert general personal jurisdiction over David.

If David commits a tort in New York, and the plaintiff chooses to sue David in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania court will have power over David.   The plaintiff can always sue David in Pennsylvania because David is at home in Pennsylvania and the court has general jurisdiction over him.   Of course, there might be reasons to transfer the case to New York, but that is a different topic.

General  Personal Jurisdiction Over Business Entities and Natural Persons

Rules for general jurisdiction over natural persons and business entities are different.  A natural person is home in his state of permanent residence.  That is, if a person has a residence in a state and intends to permanently live there, then that state will have general personal jurisdiction over him.

Courts treat natural persons as having one – – and only one – – state of permanent residence.   For example, if Debbie’s house is in Florida, and she has a Florida driver’s license, courts will probably consider Florida her state of permanent residence.  Even if Debbie studies in New York a few months a year, probably Florida alone will have general personal jurisdiction over her.

An incorporated business entity is at home in its state of incorporation and the place of its principal place of business – – usually its headquarters.  For example, if a company is incorporated in Delaware (Delaware is  a favorite place to form a company) and its headquarters is in California, both Delaware and California will have general jurisdiction over the company.

Other business entities and organizations are subject to different rules.  For partnerships and Limited Liability Companies, the entities will be at home in every state in which a partner or member lives.  For example, if a partnership has ten partners in ten different states, the partnership will be subject to general jurisdiction in each state.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction Requires a Connection Between the Lawsuit and Defendant’s Contacts with the State

Specific jurisdiction means personal jurisdiction based on a defendant’s contacts with the state.  For example, if David is a resident of Pennsylvania, New York cannot have general jurisdiction over him.  A plaintiff could not sue David based on David’s activities that have no connection with New York.

However, if David commits a tortious act in New York, then a plaintiff injured by David in New York should be able to demonstrate that a New York court has specific jurisdiction over David,  based on his tortious conduct in New York.  The plaintiff could sue David in New York because a New York court will have specific personal jurisdiction over David, based on his contacts with the state, and the connection between those contacts and the lawsuit.

Below is a video concerning specific personal jurisdiction based on a Supreme Court case decided in 2021:

Are you feeling lost in law school?

Practical and Effective Help

• All topics (contracts, torts, civ pro, etc.) 
•   Legal writing
• Law school exams, bar exam, essay writing

Get a Civ Pro Quiz Ebook!

101 Civ Pro Questions and Explanations

• Term: Personal Jurisdiction
• Term: Child Custody Jurisdiction
• Term: Natural Person
• Term: Incorporation
• Term: Subject to
• Term: Plaintiff
• Term: Defendant

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

We noticed you're visiting from Germany. We've updated our prices to Euro for your shopping convenience. Use United States (US) dollar instead. Dismiss

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

• Features Essay

A General Look at Specific Jurisdiction

March 23, 2017

By Lea Brilmayer

“Success, in domestic and international litigation alike, depends on finding a court with jurisdiction over the defendant. American constitutional law, which governs assertion of jurisdiction even over international defendants in American courts, has developed the subject of personal jurisdiction into a fine art. It’s all a question of whether ‘minimum contacts’ exist between the defendant and the forum, and whether the assertion of jurisdiction satisfies a standard of ‘fair play and substantial justice.’”

You may also like...

Implementing Integrated Deterrence in the Cyber Domain: The Role of Lawyers

August 29, 2023

Unilateral Sanctions Under International Human Rights Law: Correcting the Record

September 6, 2023

Indian Executive’s Pro-Arbitration Power Move Sanctioned by Parliament: Transnational Ideals Versus National Reality

September 2, 2016

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What Is Specific Jurisdiction: Everything You Need to Know

Specific personal jurisdiction or simply specific jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiction arising from a defendant's minimum contacts with the state. 4 min read updated on February 01, 2023

What is specific jurisdiction? Specific personal jurisdiction or simply specific jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiction arising from a defendant's minimum contacts with the state. Jurisdiction is the territorial power of a court or forum to initiate legal proceedings against the defendant. A court can hear a case only if it comes under its jurisdiction.

What Is Specific Jurisdiction?

Specific jurisdiction refers to the personal jurisdiction of a court or forum arising out of a defendant's contacts with the state over which the court or forum has a general jurisdiction. For example, if you are a resident of Florida, a Texas court cannot have general jurisdiction over you. No one can sue you in Texas for any of your activities that do not have any connection with Texas.

However, if you commit a tort in Texas, then the party injured by your act can sue you in Texas because Texas courts will get a specific jurisdiction over you because of your activity in Texas.

What Is General Jurisdiction?

U.S. courts make a distinction between general and specific jurisdictions. General jurisdiction refers to the territorial right of a court or forum to hear a case against a defendant irrespective of the place of action giving rise to the claim. A court usually has a general jurisdiction over a defendant residing within its geographical limits.

For example, if you live in Florida, then Texas courts can only have personal jurisdiction over you with respect to the actions you commit in Texas. However, Florida courts will have a general jurisdiction over you because you are a resident of Florida. A plaintiff can sue you in Florida irrespective of where the cause of action occurred.

Analyzing the Boundaries of Specific Jurisdiction

Walden v. Fiore

In Walden v. Fiore , the Supreme Court unanimously held that the professional gambler duo from Nevada could not force Anthony Walden, a law enforcement agent from Georgia, to litigate in Nevada, since the agent did not have any connection with that state.

Walden had confiscated a huge amount of cash from the two gamblers Fiore and Gipson at an airport in Atlanta, Georgia. After reaching home in Nevada, the gamblers got back their money but only after a runaround, as they claimed, from Walden. They sued Walden in a Nevada federal court.

Walden moved the District Court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the court granted the motion. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and held that the Nevada court did have personal jurisdiction over Walden. The case came up for review before the Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit ruling.

The court explained that the jurisdiction depends on the defendant's contact with the forum state . Courts cannot have a personal jurisdiction simply because the defendant harmed someone residing within their general jurisdiction.

Walden did not have any contact with Nevada since he neither lived there nor did he seize the cash there. Hence, deciding jurisdiction would have been quite easy in the case if it were not for a different precedent coming from the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones. In this case, the Supreme Court had allowed courts in California to proceed with the case involving two authors living outside the state who were sued for libel.

The authors had written a story making scandalous claims about Shirley Jones, a Californian actress. National Enquirer, which circulated in California, carried this story. This case seemed to suggest that you can be sued in California if you harm a person living in California.

The Supreme Court took a limited view of this precedent. It explained that the California court rightly had jurisdiction in that case, not just because the misleading story was directed against a Californian, but rather because of the fact that the story was read by people throughout California. Since publication to third parties is an essential element of defamation, California was nonincidentally connected to the cause of action.

Walden v. Fiore had different circumstances altogether. Walden had seized the cash in Georgia. The only connection he had with Nevada was that the plaintiffs lived there.

• As a basic principle of jurisdiction, you cannot sue someone in your state just because you live there.
• The defendant must have a connection with that place.
• The connection can be either by commission of an act by the defendant or by intentionally reaching out to that place in some other manner.
• Since the officer seized and kept the plaintiffs' money in Georgia, he could not be sued in Nevada.

If you need help with questions like, “what is specific jurisdiction?” you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Jurisdiction Agreement
• Jurisdiction Clause
• Contract Law Jurisdiction
• Chancery, Court of Equity
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• California vs Nevada LLC
• Article I Courts Defined and Explained
• Forum Selection Clause
• Understanding the Federal Courts
• Law Governing Contracts

Civil Procedure I

Personal jurisdiction.

• Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Civil Procedure

Pennoyer v. neff, personal jurisdiction chart, step 1: assessing personal jurisdiction.

To establish that personal jurisdiction is proper, one must assess the Long-Arm Statute of the State or Federal Court first, and then move to assessing Due Process under the Constitution. Remember that personal jurisdiction is a waivable right.

I will address these elements: Consent, Tag, Domicile, General Jurisdiction, Specific Jurisdiction, In rem jurisdiction for both the Long-Arm Statute and the Due Process Clause. 

Lecture on Personal Jurisdiction

Use this lecture series for additional help with PJ. Remember that this libguide is created to help you find the answers yourself and to fill in the gaps. Make sure that you have created your own outline and attack plan with the steps that make sense to you. Also, make sure that you do not forget to first look at the call of the question. Knowing all of the information becomes useless if you do not apply the information to the question asked, and also if you cannot apply the information to the facts. Check the cases with your cases and case book from class and make sure to use them in the rules. Civil Procedure is one class in which both the rule book and case law have significantly developed the subject. 

PJ Constitutional Analysis

Constitutional Analysis:

Sources of personal Jurisdiction:

 1. PRESENCE - if the defendant is served with process within the state, then jurisdiction is proper.  Burnham v. Superior Court of California

• Scalia: validation is its pedigree
• Brennan: You should apply the international shoe test, but presence in the state may provide the necessary  minimum contacts . 
• Note that if the defendant was in the state involuntarily, then probably not sufficient for PJ. 

2.  CONSENT - there are 3 main ways to consent (if yes, then PJ)

• Appointing an agent for service of process in the state 
• conduct in the litigation (filing a general appearance or just showing up
• forum selection clause :  The Bremen v. Zapata Off-shore co.; Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute

3.  DOMICILE-  for a person or a corporation, PJ is proper when  they are domiciled no matter the cause of action. For a coporporation: place of incorporation and principle place of business are appropriate for domicile. 

IF none of these work, apply the  International Shoe test, which requires "minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Federal Long Arm Statute Specifics

PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL COURTS

Rule 4 (k)(1) -federal long arm

a. Absent special litigation, a federal court has personal jurisdiction only if a state court in which the federal courts sit would have personal jurisdiction

b. The 100 mile "bulge" rule(b)-when you're within 100 miles of a federal court house, jurisdiction is proper regardless of state boundaries. Designed to simplify complete resolution of disputes.

c) when Congress permits-congress has authorized nationwide service of process in areas such as antitrust, securities, bankruptcy, and interpleader-this permits defendant to be served anywhere in the United States and provides personal jurisdiction regardless of whether there would have been jurisdiction in any state court

d) defendant's properly sued in local courts of that state,

e) 100-mile bulge joinder rule-if I sue the Defendant and the Defendant says "hey there's      someone else responsible." The defendant can bring them into the lawsuit if they are within     100 miles of the courthouse.

Rule 4 (k) (2) -federal long arm

Provides for jurisdiction in any federal court for a claim that is based on federal law and where

a) there is no state which would have personal jurisdiction AND

b) jurisdiction is constitutional and lawful under US: due process

c) what is not subject to any one state's jurisdiction, but

d) has sufficient contacts with the U.S. and

e) the claim is federal

Keeton v. Hustler -Keeton was citizen of NY with little connection to NH. She sued Hustler in NH, because statute of limitations had run up everywhere else. Supreme Court upheld personal jurisdiction for injury suffered over alleged defamatory in NH and in all other states where the mag was distributed. Supreme said NH has "substantial interest in cooperating with other states…to provide a forum for efficiently litigating."

Plaintiff doesn’t have to have minimum contacts with the forum state only defendant does.

Calder v. Jones Court upheld jurisdiction in CA against editor and writer who were FL citizens over an alleged defamatory article about CA citizen. Article was drawn from CA sources and brunt of harm to plaintiff (emotional distress/professional injury) was in CA. CA is proper jurisdiction based on effects of FL conduct. Defendants knew magazine would have big impact in CA, biggest circulation and plaintiff worked in CA. Defendants "reasonably anticipated being hailed into court to answer about article. Purposeful Availment- article about a citizen of CA and her character, where she works and lives, so the defendants were reaching into the state.

Limits to the State

14th amendment due process clause-state

5th amendment due process clause -federal

Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet

Revell v. Lidov (2002) -Lidov wrote an article alleging that plaintiff Revell, a former FBI director helped perform a government cover-up about PanAm 103 flight that exploded over Scotland in 1987- article specifically pointed about Revell and was posted on Columbia University's website. Revell-resident of TX, sued in TX courts. Columbia University-principal offices in NYC and Lidov-MA resident and didn’t know Revell lived in TX so it wasn’t intentional aim at TX. Issue: Can TX have jurisdiction over a person whose only contacts with the forum are over a public website?

Rule: Not enough to use Calder

Article had no reference to TX, no reference to Revell's activities in TX, not directed at TX readers, TX was not focal point of harm suffered. Plaintiff's residence in TX not enough

Defendant knew that article would cause harm but it was not directed at TX.

Zippo Mfg. Co v. Zippos Dot Com (1997) PA trial court-sliding scale developed for Internet

"sliding scale"-one end is passive, the other end is interactive

Passive website-basically you can only look at-can't have personal jurisdiction because it's not purposefully availing itself

Interactive website- you can have an exchange and connect with people-personal jurisdiction because there is interaction and availment

Toys R Us, Inc v. Step Two, SA (2003)-Zippo is outdated by 2003. All websites are interactive under Zippo rules. There must be "something more" like "intentionality" to show that the non-resident is directing its activity to forum residents via 1) related internet contacts related to dispute or 2) non-internet contacts related to dispute (like serial business trips to forum) 

Step 2: State Long-Arm Statutes

In analyzing personal jurisdiction, a person may be found to be under the authority to bring a lawsuit in the state through the long-arm statute of the state. 

How to Satisfy the Long-Arm Statute: (State of South Carolina):

1. Consent - (waived)

2. Tag : S.C. §36-2-805: “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any other basis authorized by law.”

3. Domicile/ Tag without Tag : S.C. §36-2-802: “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person domiciled in, organized under the laws of, doing business, or maintaining his or its principal place of business in, this state as a cause of action.”

4. General Jurisdiction : (Coggeshall v. Reproductive Endocrine Associates of Charlotte)

Doing business in the state can constitute jurisdiction in the state. Activities and injuries do not have to specifically arise from the state under General Jurisdiction. A company that holds contacts in the state and is said to have an “enduring relationship” based on the facts of the case would have general jurisdiction. There is no formula that specifically authorizes doing business but enduring relationship requires that its contacts are continuous, systematic, and substantial. (From Helicopteros and International Shoe). 

Under Coggeshall, the company was not subject to general jurisdiction because services were not rendered in South Carolina. It would be unfair to permit a lawsuit in a distant jurisdiction, where a plaintiff may carry consequences, but the act was done in another jurisdiction.

South Carolina Fairness Prong: The SC fairness prong (comparable to Justice White's 5): (1) duration of activity of non-resident in the state, (2) character and circumstances of commission of non-residents acts, (3) inconvenience resulting to the parties from conferring or not conferring jurisdiction over the nonresident, (4) state's interest in exercising jurisdiction.

Sumatra 4: (1) Embracing Stream of Commerce Theory in S.C. (2) Personal Jurisdiction follows the product and presence is not required. 

5. Specific Jurisdiction : S.C. 36-2-803 where personal jurisdiction is based on conduct. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent to a cause of action arising from business transactions, tortious injury in the state, entry into contract in the state. Also, did the company intent to avail itself to the benefits and protections of the state by its actions? ALSO the 8 Categories for Specific Jurisdiction SC §803. 

In South Carolina, there are eight categories for which a person can be held under specific jurisdiction. (1) by transacting business in the state, (2) by contracting supplies or service in the state, (3) by committing a tortious act in the state, (4) by causing death or tort in the state from outside of the state, (5) by contracting to insure a person in the state, (6) by becoming a party to a contract that is to be performed in the state, (7) by producing or manufacturing goods consumed in the state, (8) by using or possessing real property in the state. 

6. In rem : does the defendant have property in the state?

For Federal Cases: In addition, according to the 100 Mile Bulge Rule, jurisdiction is proper if the defendant could be subject to the jurisdiction of a general court in the same state in which the district court is located.

Step 3: Federal Due Process Analysis

1.    Consent - Under Rule 12- defendant must waive challenge to response immediately.

-       A person must appoint an agent for service of process in a state in which he or she does business. This is so that the court can give that person notice

-       General appearance or just showing up can constitute consent.

-       Presence Test- voluntary consent because of significant presence in the state. Tag can establish consent.

2. Tag : Burnham case: presence in the state enables that person to be tagged in the state with notice of a lawsuit.

3. Domicile/ Tag without Tag :  Millican case: when your home is in the state, you can always be served at home. For a corporation, according to Hertz v. Friend a corporation can be tagged at principal place of business established by nerve center test or by place of incorporation. A corporation’s domicile is in both places.  Domicile in the state is sufficient to bring an absent defendant within reach of state’s jurisdiction. The court has concluded that with modern advancements, it is reasonable to expect the defendant to travel.

4. General Jurisdiction :

- when to use: when the contacts in the state are unrelated to the cause of action.

- So continuous and systematic that it renders the defendant essentially at home. (Goodyear Case)

- Doing substantial business within the state (Perkins Case)

- It's only fair test (International Shoe and tested in Shaffer v. Heitner with stocks not qualifying as In rem). Usually if there is property in the state, then there are sufficient minimum contacts.

The court is clear that a defendant must be essentially at home. (Helicopteros case: when there are not enough continuous and systematic contacts to render a party essentially at home.)

-Why General Jurisdiction? Ensures that there is always somewhere to sue a plaintiff.

5. Specific Jurisdiction : Test for minimum contacts, reasonableness, arising under test, and purposeful availment

- A lawsuit must not offend traditional notions of fairplay or substantial justice. Use specific jurisdiction when actions give rise to the lawsuit.

- Minimum Contacts: Is there purposeful availment? Is there stream of commerce?

- Stream of Commerce test (Daimler case) If a corporation puts an item into the stream of commerce then wherever it ends up is a suitable forum. EXCEPTION: Asahi Case shows that maybe merely putting an item into the stream of commerce is not purposeful availment without intending it to go to that jurisdiction. (ie. Online cases show that the internet website must be active and intending to be in that state).

- Asahi and Nicastro Tests: awareness that the product is sold is sufficient.

- The Whizzer Five: Testing reasonableness for requiring a nonresident to submit to the forum. (1) burden on defendant (2) forum's interest in resolving the dispute, (3) plaintiff's interest in resolving the dispute, (4) efficient resolution- most efficient place, (5) furthering fundamental substantive social policy. 

- Purposeful availment (It's only fair test) can be satisfied by (1) stream of commerce, (2) contractual ties, (3) presence/ actual contacts, (4) intentionally availing 

6. In rem : Stake in the Ground: Types of In Rem and when a court can use the property. Property cannot be attached to create jurisdiction. 

10th Amendment

1. State possesses exclusive jurisdiction over persons and properties within its territory.

2. No state can exercise "direct" jurisdiction over persons or property outside its territory.

Starting to Write an Exam Essay

#1 First thing to do in any case is to find the CALL OF THE QUESTION.

State the overarching issue in the fact pattern. The issue of this case is________________. If the issue is Personal Jurisdiction for example, then you must go through the steps. 

Step 4: Analyze and Conclude

Do not forget to ANALYZE the facts according to each step and to come to a CONCLUSION.

Check the Library for additional information. The study aid section has some multiple choice question books that will help with your understanding of personal jurisdiction. 

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Notice >>
• Last Updated: Apr 11, 2024 1:12 PM
• URL: https://charlestonlaw.libguides.com/c.php?g=509293

Fifth Amendment :

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

“Personal jurisdiction” or in personam jurisdiction refers to a court’s power over a person (or entity) who is a party to, or involved in, a case or controversy before the court, including its power to render judgments affecting that person’s rights. 1 Footnote Personal Jurisdiction , Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014 ). Prior to the states’ ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s 1877 decision in Pennoyer v. Neff , a nonresident who received an adverse judgment from one state court would often wait until the winning party sought to obtain enforcement of the judgment 2 Footnote In this context, “enforcement” of a judgment referred to a court’s action “to compel a person to comply with the terms of a judgment” of another state’s courts after determining that the foreign state’s judgment should be recognized as a judgment of the domestic court. Enforcement , Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 1 . in the nonresident’s state before challenging the issuing court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident. 3 Footnote Stephen E. Sachs , Pennoyer Was Right , 95 Tex. L. Rev. 1249 , 1270 (2017) ( “States that wanted to exercise broad jurisdiction would do so, and would execute judgments within their borders on as much of the defendant’s property as they could find. These state judgments, unlike foreign ones, could claim the benefit of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the 1790 Act. But these provisions were read to leave the law of personal jurisdiction alone. So when American courts were presented with the judgment of another tribunal, whether from Michigan or Mexico, they used the same approach to determining personal jurisdiction. The judgment was the product of a separate sovereign, which was expected to comply with international rules.” ). State (and, in some cases, federal) 4 Footnote Id. at 1279 (noting that “federal courts did hear actions involving the recognition of other courts’ judgments, giving them opportunities to comment on the general rules” in diversity cases or cases raising questions under federal statutes regulating judicial procedure). See, e.g. , Flower v. Parker , 9 F. Cas. 323, 324 (C.C.D. Mass. 1823) ( No. 4891 ) (Story, C.J.) (evaluating a Massachusetts state court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a Louisiana defendant in a Massachusetts federal court case seeking the enforcement of the state court’s judgment). A “diversity case” is one in which a federal court exercises “authority over a case involving parties who are citizens of different states and an amount in controversy greater than a statutory minimum.” Diversity Jurisdiction , Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 1 . courts considering whether such judgments were enforceable would typically resolve such jurisdictional challenges on the basis of general, customary law principles 5 Footnote “Customary law” refers to law “consisting of customs that are accepted as legal requirements or obligatory rules of conduct; practices and beliefs that are so vital and intrinsic a part of a social and economic system that they are treated as if they were laws.” Customary Law , Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 1 . that had been shaped by the rules for recognition of foreign judgments under international law. 6 Footnote Sachs, supra note 3, at 1270 ( “The Constitution’s role here was largely indirect—letting defendants remove their cases into federal court or challenge enforcement through diversity suits.” ). See also Hall v. Williams , 23 Mass. (6 Pick.) 232, 238 (1828) (stating that the “principles of the common law” applicable “to judgments of the tribunals of foreign countries” also applied “to the judgments of the courts of the several States when sought to be enforced by the judiciary power of any State other than that in which they were rendered” ).

However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennoyer , the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 7 Footnote U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 ( “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” ). to limit the power of state courts to render judgments affecting the personal rights of defendants 8 Footnote Although the bulk of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence concerns the constitutionality of courts’ exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants , the Court has addressed personal jurisdiction over plaintiffs in at least one case. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 811–12 (1985) (upholding a Kansas trial court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over nonresident class-action plaintiffs based on the mailing of an “opt-out notice” to the plaintiffs even though their contacts with the forum might not have been sufficient to satisfy the demands of due process had they been defendants in a lawsuit). who do not reside within the state’s territory. 9 Footnote See, e.g. , World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980) ( “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant.” ) (citing Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 91 (1978) ). “A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.” Id. As discussed elsewhere in the Constitution Annotated, see supra Amdt5.4.5.4.7 Other Aspects of Due Process, the Due Process Clause also requires that a defendant receive adequate notice that a lawsuit has been brought against him and have the opportunity to respond. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313–14 (1950) ( “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” ). In addition to complying with the requirements of the Federal Constitution, state courts must also have authority under state law in order to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Oftentimes, states have enacted “long-arm” statutes that grant their courts jurisdiction over nonresidents. See, e.g. , Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 ( “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” ); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4 (specifying situations in which the exercise of jurisdiction comports with state law). Pennoyer converted the issue of personal jurisdiction into a question of federal constitutional law, allowing a party to obtain direct review of a state court’s judgment in federal court (i.e., review of the judgment on appeal) on the grounds that the state court lacked personal jurisdiction over the party. 10 Footnote Sachs, supra note 3, at 1253 ( “The Fourteenth Amendment remade this picture simply by changing the route for appeal. A judgment without jurisdiction was void; its execution took away property (or, less commonly, liberty) without due process of law. That turned the presence or absence of jurisdiction, full stop, into a matter of constitutional concern.” ). “Execution” of a judgment refers to judicial enforcement of a money judgment, often “by seizing and selling the judgment debtor’s property.” Execution , Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 1 . Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment , a state court that issued a judgment affecting a nonresident without jurisdiction had violated the constitutional rights of that person by depriving them of property without due process of law. 11 Footnote Sachs, supra note 3, at 1253. “Due process” generally refers to the “conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case.” Due Process , Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 1 .

Over the years, the Supreme Court has offered three main justifications for the constitutional constraints on a court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over nonresident persons and corporations. First, each state’s status as a “co-equal sovereign” in a federal system of government implies at least some limits on the power of its courts to render judgments affecting the rights of entities outside of that state’s boundaries. 12 Footnote See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court , No. 16-466, slip op. at 6 (U.S. June 19, 2017) ( “As we have put it, restrictions on personal jurisdiction ‘are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.’” ) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 251 (1958) ); World-Wide Volkswagen , 444 U.S. at 292 (stating that the requirement that a defendant have minimum contacts with the forum “acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system” ); id. at 293 ( “The sovereignty of each State, in turn, implied a limitation on the sovereignty of all of its sister States—a limitation express or implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment .” ). Second, constitutional limits on personal jurisdiction attempt to address concerns about the unfairness of subjecting defendants to litigation in a distant or inconvenient forum. 13 Footnote World-Wide Volkswagen , 444 U.S. at 292 (stating that the requirement that a defendant have minimum contacts with the forum “protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum” ); Hanson , 357 U.S. at 251 (acknowledging that limits on personal jurisdiction are, in part, “a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation” ). The Supreme Court has stated that the doctrine of personal jurisdiction makes it easier for defendants to structure their conduct in a manner that will avoid subjecting them to lawsuits in a particular forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) . Finally, constitutional limits on the exercise of personal jurisdiction recognize that the Due Process Clause protects defendants from being deprived of life, liberty, or property by a tribunal without lawful power. 14 Footnote J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro , 564 U.S. 873 , 879 (2011) (plurality opinion) ( “The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s right to be deprived of life, liberty, or property only by the exercise of lawful power. This is no less true with respect to the power of a sovereign to resolve disputes through judicial process than with respect to the power of a sovereign to prescribe rules of conduct for those within its sphere.” ) (internal citations omitted); Burger King , 471 U.S. at 471–72 ( “The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.” ) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 n.10 (1982) (declaring that the restriction on state power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident is “ultimately a function of the individual liberty interest preserved by the Due Process Clause” ).

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence addressing the doctrine of personal jurisdiction as applied in state courts spans a period of American history that has witnessed a significant expansion of interstate and global commerce, as well as major technological advancements in transportation and communication. 15 Footnote See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250–51 (1958) ( “As technological progress has increased the flow of commerce between States, the need for jurisdiction over nonresidents has undergone a similar increase. At the same time, progress in communications and transportation has made the defense of a suit in a foreign tribunal less burdensome.” ). These changes produced a fundamental shift in the Court’s views concerning the doctrine. 16 Footnote Id. Although the Court initially considered the defendant’s physical presence within the forum state to be the touchstone of the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him or her, 17 Footnote See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 720 (1877) ( “The authority of every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established. Any attempt to exercise authority beyond those limits would be deemed in every other forum . . . [an] illegitimate assumption of power, and be resisted as mere abuse.” ), overruled in part by , Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) . it later rejected strict adherence to this rule in favor of a more flexible standard that examines a nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum state to determine whether those contacts make it reasonable to require him to respond to a lawsuit there. 18 Footnote See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945) ( “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state. The exercise of that privilege may give rise to obligations; and, so far as those obligations arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state, a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought to enforce them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue.” ).

The Supreme Court’s opinions in International Shoe Co. v. Washington and subsequent cases have established a two-part test for determining when a state court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over each nonresident defendant sued by a plaintiff comports with due process: (1) the defendant must have established minimum contacts with the forum state that demonstrate an intent to avail itself of the benefits and protections of state law; and (2) it must be reasonable to require the defendant to defend the lawsuit in the forum. 19 Footnote World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980) ( “[A] state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State.” ) (citing Int’l Shoe Co. , 326 U.S. at 316 ); id. at 292 ( “[T]he defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit ‘does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. , 326 U.S. at 316) ). See also Burger King , 471 U.S. at 476 ( “So long as a commercial actor’s efforts are ‘purposefully directed’ toward residents of another State, we have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there.” ). Since that fundamental shift, much of the Court’s jurisprudence addressing the limits that the Constitution places on state courts’ exercise of personal jurisdiction has addressed the quality and nature of the “minimum contacts” among the defendant, the forum, and litigation that the Constitution requires before a court may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. 20 Footnote See discussion infra Amdt5.4.7.1.4 Minimum Contact Requirements for Personal Jurisdiction. Questions over personal jurisdiction have become one of the most frequent constitutional issues resolved by lower federal courts, 21 Footnote See Edward A. Hartnett , Modest Hope for a Modest Roberts Court: Deference, Facial Challenges, and the Comparative Competence of Courts , 59 SMU L. Rev. 1735 , 1755 (2006) (describing the “constitutionality of exercising personal jurisdiction” as “probably the most common constitutional question that courts decide” ). and are the basis for a dismissal of complaints in a considerable number of cases lodged in both federal and state court. 22 Footnote See Michael E. Solimine , The Quiet Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction , 73 Tul. L. Rev. 1 , 23–38 (1998) (noting in a study of nearly 1,000 cases addressing the issue personal jurisdiction decided by state supreme courts and federal appeals courts between and 1970 and 1994, including 148 products liability cases, that personal jurisdiction was a successful defense in nearly 41% of the cases in which the defense was raised).

When determining whether a defendant has minimum contacts with the court in which the action is initially filed, the Court has distinguished the types of contacts sufficient for a court’s exercise of “general” personal jurisdiction over the defendant from those contacts sufficient for its exercise, alternatively, of “specific” jurisdiction. A court’s exercise of specific jurisdiction may be constitutional when the defendant has contacts with the forum that give rise to, or are related to, the plaintiff’s cause of action (e.g., an act or occurrence caused by the defendant that takes place in the forum or has an impact there). 23 Footnote Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984) ( “It has been said that when a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the State is exercising ‘specific jurisdiction’ over the defendant.” ) (citing Arthur T. von Mehren & Donald T. Trautman , Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis , 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1121 , 1144–64 (1966) ); Int’l Shoe , 326 U.S. at 317 ( “Presence in the state . . . has never been doubted when the activities of the corporation there have not only been continuous and systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on . . . .” ) (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, a court’s exercise of general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for any claim—even if all the incidents underlying the claim occurred in a different state—may be constitutional when the defendant’s activities in the forum state are so substantial that it is reasonable to require it to defend a lawsuit that did not arise out of its activities in the forum state and is unrelated to those activities. 24 Footnote See Helicopteros , 466 U.S. at 414 n.9 ( “When a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit not arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the State has been said to be exercising ‘general jurisdiction’ over the defendant.” ); see also id. at 416 (holding that a Texas court could not exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that did not have a place of business in Texas and had only limited contacts with the state involving in-state purchases and training trips); Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 438, 415, 445 (1952) (holding that an Ohio court could subject a Philippine mining corporation to personal jurisdiction even though the “cause of action sued upon did not arise in Ohio and d[id] not relate to the corporation’s activities there” because of the corporation’s substantial activities within the state, including “directors’ meetings, business correspondence, banking, stock transfers, payment of salaries, [and] purchasing of machinery” ). In more recent years, the Court has significantly limited the types of activities or affiliations of the defendant in the forum state sufficient for general jurisdiction, holding that those contacts must be so substantial as to render the defendant “essentially at home” in the forum state. 25 Footnote Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , 564 U.S. 915 , 919 (2011) ( “A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” ). See also Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117 , 139 (2014) (holding that Daimler Chrysler, a German public stock company, could not be subject to suit in California with respect to acts taken in Argentina by an Argentinian subsidiary of Daimler, notwithstanding the fact that Daimler Chrysler had a U.S. subsidiary that did business in California). The Court has clarified that, absent exceptional circumstances, a corporate defendant is “at home” when it is incorporated in the forum state or maintains its principal place of business there (e.g., the corporation is headquarted in the state). 26 Footnote Goodyear , 564 U.S. at 924 (noting an individual’s domicile and a corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business as “paradigm” bases for general jurisdiction) (citation omitted); id. at 930 n.6 ( “[E]ven regularly occurring sales of a product in a State do not justify the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim unrelated to those sales.” ).

Although the Supreme Court has adopted a more flexible standard for evaluating a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction, it has also confirmed that several traditional bases for the exercise of judicial power over a nonresident defendant for claims against him enjoy a presumption of constitutionality without requiring an independent inquiry into the contacts among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. These traditional bases include: a defendant who is domiciled in the forum; 27 Footnote Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 462–63 (1940) ( “Domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent defendant within the reach of the state’s jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment by means of appropriate substituted service . . . . The state which accords him privileges and affords protection to him and his property by virtue of his domicile may also exact reciprocal duties.” ); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 438 (1932) (holding that the United States retains in personam jurisdiction over its citizens living abroad). A person’s “domicile” is generally the “place at which a person has been physically present and that the person regards as home; a person’s true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere.” Domicile , Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 1 . “Substituted service of process” refers to any “method of service allowed by law in place of personal service, such as service by mail.” Substituted Service , Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 1 . a defendant who has consented to jurisdiction; 28 Footnote “Consent” may be express or implied. See, e.g. , Nat’l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 318 (1964) (holding that defendant lessee’s contractual appointment of an agent to receive service of process on the lessee’s behalf amounted to consent to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of New York when the agent was served with process and notified the lessee); Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 355–56 (1927) (upholding a state court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based on a theory of implied consent when the defendant drove a vehicle on a public highway in the state and was involved in an accident there). “Service of process” refers to the “formal delivery of a writ, summons, or other legal process, pleading, or notice to a litigant or other party interested in litigation; the legal communication of a judicial process.” Service , Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 1 . and a defendant who is a natural person (i.e., not a business or governmental entity) and is served with process while physically present within the forum. 29 Footnote Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604, 619 (1990) (plurality opinion) ( “[J]urisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” ). Providing the fifth and deciding vote in Burnham , Justice White, in a concurring opinion, argued that a particular basis for jurisdiction could not be constitutionally valid merely because of its historical pedigree, and that fairness to the defendant must also be considered. Id. at 628 (White, J., concurring). The Court has also indicated that a state court may adjudicate the personal status of a plaintiff in relation to the defendant (e.g., marital status) without considering whether personal jurisdiction over the defendant is constitutionally valid. 30 Footnote Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734 (1877) ( “[W]e do not mean to assert, by any thing we have said, that a State may not authorize proceedings to determine the status of one of its citizens towards a non-resident, which would be binding within the State, though made without service of process or personal notice to the non-resident.” ), overruled in part by , Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) .

Although the Supreme Court has decided several cases addressing the Fourteenth Amendment ’s limits on state courts’ exercise of personal jurisdiction, it has generally declined to resolve questions about the extent to which the Fifth Amendment 31 Footnote U.S. Const. amend. V ( “[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” ). may place similar jurisdictional limitations on federal courts. For example, the Supreme Court has declined to rule on whether it is constitutional for Congress to authorize nationwide service of process so that any federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant who has, in the aggregate, substantial contacts with the United States. 32 Footnote Congress has provided for nationwide service of process in a handful of federal statutes. See, e.g. , 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (Securities Exchange Act of 1934); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 – 1968 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)). But federal courts “ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons.” Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117 , 125 (2014) . This practice, which involves federal courts in analyzing the reach of a state’s long-arm statute and the defendant’s contacts with the state in which the court sits, stems from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) (linking federal courts’ power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant to service of process on the defendant according to the laws of the state in which the federal district court is located). See, e.g. , Wilson v. Belin , 20 F.3d 644 , 646–47 (5th Cir. 1994) ( “In a diversity suit, a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the same extent that a state court in that forum has such jurisdiction. The reach of this jurisdiction is delimited by: (1) the state’s long-arm statute; and (2) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.” ) (citation omitted).Although the Supreme Court has decided several cases addressing the Fourteenth Amendment ’s limits on state courts’ exercise of personal jurisdiction, it has generally declined to resolve questions about the extent to which the Fifth Amendment , see U.S. Const. amend. V ( “[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” ), may place similar jurisdictional limitations on federal courts. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court , No. 16-466, slip op. at 12 (U.S. June 19, 2017) ( “In addition, since our decision concerns the due process limits on the exercise of specific jurisdiction by a State, we leave open the question whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court.” ); Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 102 n.5 (1987) (declining to consider whether “a federal court could exercise personal jurisdiction, consistent with the Fifth Amendment , based on an aggregation of the defendant’s contacts with the Nation as a whole, rather than on its contacts with the State in which the federal court sits” ); Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 116 n. (1987) (plurality opinion) ( “We have no occasion here to determine whether Congress could, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment , authorize federal court personal jurisdiction over alien defendants based on the aggregate of national contacts, rather than on the contacts between the defendant and the State in which the federal court sits.” ). As a result, the majority of this essay focus on the limits imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment on the jurisdiction of state courts (and, through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal courts, as well). Consequently, this essay focuses on the Court’s cases addressing the Fourteenth Amendment , which imposes due process requirements on actions by state governments. 33 Footnote U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1 ( “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” ) (emphasis added). However, it is important to note that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give federal district courts power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant to the same extent that a state court in the state where the federal district court is located may assert that power, meaning the same Fourteenth Amendment limits on personal jurisdiction generally apply to federal courts. 34 Footnote Supra note 32.

Although the Supreme Court has decided several cases addressing the Fourteenth Amendment ’s limits on state courts’ exercise of personal jurisdiction, it has generally declined to resolve questions about the extent to which the Fifth Amendment , see U.S. Const. amend. V ( “[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” ), may place similar jurisdictional limitations on federal courts. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court , No. 16-466, slip op. at 12 (U.S. June 19, 2017) ( “In addition, since our decision concerns the due process limits on the exercise of specific jurisdiction by a State, we leave open the question whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court.” ); Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 , 102 n.5 (1987) (declining to consider whether “a federal court could exercise personal jurisdiction, consistent with the Fifth Amendment , based on an aggregation of the defendant’s contacts with the Nation as a whole, rather than on its contacts with the State in which the federal court sits” ); Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 , 116 n. (1987) (plurality opinion) ( “We have no occasion here to determine whether Congress could, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment , authorize federal court personal jurisdiction over alien defendants based on the aggregate of national contacts, rather than on the contacts between the defendant and the State in which the federal court sits.” ). As a result, the majority of this essay focus on the limits imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment on the jurisdiction of state courts (and, through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal courts, as well).

• IP – S24
• Innovations – S24

• About Professor Nathenson
• Legal scholarship
• Other writings
• Scholarship on SSRN
• Scholarship on Bepress
• IP@STU: IP Certificate
• About Civil Procedure
• Assignments
• Study resources
• Nathenson.org MBE resources
• YouTube MBE playlists
• Subject matter jurisdiction
• Due Process, notice, service
• Personal jurisdiction
• Erie Doctrine
• Motions, trial, judgments
• Claim & Issue Preclusion
• Innovations & Patent Management
• Intellectual Property
• Trademark & Branding Law
• IP certificate
•         - About Professor Nathenson
•         - C.V.
•         - Contact me
•         - Legal scholarship
•         - Other writings
•         - Scholarship on SSRN
•         - Scholarship on Bepress
•         - IP@STU: IP Certificate
•                 - About Civil Procedure
•                 - Syllabus
•                 - Assignments
•                 - Study resources
•                 - About Professor Nathenson
•                 - Nathenson.org MBE resources
•                 - YouTube MBE playlists
•                         - By topic
•                         - Subject matter jurisdiction
•                         - Due Process, notice, service
•                         - Personal jurisdiction
•                         - MBE: Venue
•                         - Pleadings
•                         - Joinder
•                         - Erie Doctrine
•                         - Discovery
•                         - Motions, trial, judgments
•                         - Claim & Issue Preclusion
•                         - Appeals
•         - Innovations & Patent Management
•         - Intellectual Property
•         - Trademark & Branding Law

Personal jurisdiction study materials

• PJ concept sheets : provides important terms, use for study.
• Minimum contacts tables : provides conceptual guidance on the basics of the Minimum Contacts test.
• Long-arm statutes : conceptualize different types of state long-arm statutes.
• In rem/quasi in rem handout for  Shaffer case : the categories of In Rem and Quasi-In-Rem jurisdiction discussed in  Shaffer .
• Shaffer ‘s framework explained
• Personal Jurisdiction “Coggle” flowchart for PJ Big Picture Day

Study questions

• Study questions on PJ
• Study questions/topics for Pennoyer
• Study questions on International Shoe
• Study questions on McGee , Hanson , and World-Wide Volkswagen
• Study questions on Keeton & Calder
• Study questions on Burger King
• Study questions on Asahi
• Study questions on Daimler
• Study questions on Shaffer
• Study questions on Burnham
• Study questions on state and federal long-arms

Problem sets

• PJ problem set: questions
• PJ problem set: explanations

Practice and actual essays

• Actual prior essay exams  (includes some PJ questions)
• PJ Practice Essay: Amazone (simplified)
• PJ Practice Essay: Amazone (more difficult)
• PJ Practice Essay on yPhone by ALI Brittnay Wittnebel
• Student-submitted practice essays

PJ Big Picture Day, Fall 2015

This review was done twice. The first review (Section 1) was recorded in eight parts, sorted by sub-topic. The second review was recorded in one take. All nine videos are available on my YouTube channel.

PJ Big Picture Day, Fall 2014

PJ Problem Set discussion, Fall 2014

Last updated Nov. 23, 2015

Law Outlines Civil Procedure Outlines

Personal Jurisdiction Outline

Updated personal jurisdiction notes.

Civil Procedure

Detailed outline and notes from a 1L Civil Procedure class. Includes detailed case summaries, charts and diagrams where appropriate, and the professor's policy discussions interspersed throughout. Would be very helpful for any 1L tackling Civ Pro for the first time....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure Outlines . Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

SEE GLANNON

Types of Jurisdiction

Types of in personam jurisdiction:.

Service while physically present in forum (Pennoyer)

Domicile in forum (General Jurisdiction)

Consent (Hess v. Pawlowski)

Minimum Contacts (Int’l Shoe)

Contacts related to cause of action (specific jurisdiction)

Substantial or pervasive contacts unrelated to cause of action (general jurisdiction)

Personal Jurisdiction

14th Amendment Due Process Clause - No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Framework of PJ - every state has exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory; no state can exercise direct jurisdiction outside its territory

Pennoyer Rule: Judgment in personam requires personal service of process in state. Substituted service by publication is allowed where (1) property is brought under court by seizure or some equivalent act (quasi in rem), or (2) judgments in rem.

A court may enter judgment against a non-resident if the party is personally served within the state, or has property in the state that is attached before litigation begins ( quasi in rem )

X Pennoyer v. Neff (US 1877) p.681

Neff resided in CA, was sued by Mitchell over unpaid legal fees in OR. Mitchell served Neff by newspaper publication in OR because his address was unknown. Mitchell obtained default judgment in OR against Neff, seized title to Neff's land (obtained after suit) for sheriff's auction, then bought it for the value of the judgment ($341.60), and sold to Pennoyer. Neff sued Pennoyer over the land title, which he said was worth 15K.

Holding: No PJ, Neff got his land back from Pennoyer

Based on international law principles - respecting power within borders

Policy justification for curtailing state court power in Pennoyer?

Don’t want to be unfair to Ds (Cf. Hansberry v. Lee )

Full faith & credit clause (Article IV Section 1) doesn't apply because there is a question of whether first judgment is valid

14th Amendment - due process concerns with personal jurisdiction (however not ratified until after Pennoyer)

Precursors to Minimum Contacts

Debt travels with debtor (i.e. person who owes money) (quasi in rem)

Harris v. Balk (US 1905) p. 693 (quasi in rem)

Harris (NC) owed Balk (NC) $180. Balk owed Epstein (MD) $344. Harris travels to MD and is sued by Epstein for $180 (attaching Harris' debt to Balk to Balk's debt to Epstein). Harris pays Epstein and then is sued by Balk in NC for the $180. SCOTUS rules for Harris on grounds that Balk had notice of proceedings in MD because he sued Harris immediately after his return to NC, and Balk had opportunity to litigate judgment in MD.

Implied consent

Hess v. Pawloski , (US 1927) p. 696

MA court has personal jurisdiction over a driver who caused a car accident while driving in Massachusetts. Non-resident driving on highway gives implied consent to appointment of registrar as agent on whom process may be served. Not a due process violation.

Personal jurisdiction is based on intent.

General v. Specific Personal Jurisdiction

In specific jurisdiction, the claim arises out of D's contacts in the forum, while general jurisdiction permits all claims against D in forum, even if unrelated to D's contacts in that forum.

Minimum Contacts Test

“Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”

International Shoe v. Washington (US 1945) p.700 - due process requires only minimum contacts with forum in order to subject a D to a judgment in personam. Must not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice'" (citing Milliken v. Meyer ).

Del. Corp. with headquarters in St. Louis employed 11-13 salesmen working on commission in Washington; sued by State of WA in WA court over unpaid unemployment fund contributions. Notice served personally on company salesman in WA and by registered mail to headquarters in MS.

SCOTUS rejects Pennoyer doctrine that personal presence in territory is necessary for suit - company has no offices, warehouses, etc. in state.

Presence should be continuous and systematic and give rise to the liabilities sued on (specific jurisdiction).

Casual presence, isolated activities not enough for general jurisdiction, but may be enough for specific jurisdiction ( See Hess v. Pawloski )

Not a mechanical or quantitative test - depends on quality and nature of activity

Purposeful availment doctrine - "but to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protections of the law of that state. The exercise of that privilege may give rise to obligations…"

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Outlines .

• Oxbridge Notes' prizewinning note marketplace has been servingstudents since 2010 with premium study materials
• Reap the benefits of joined-up learning and earn higher grades, just like our 75,000+ happy customers.

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

More Civil Procedure Samples

• Brief And Detailed Tables Of Contents Outline
• Bringing An Action The Complaint Outline
• Discovery And Exemptions Outline
• Erie And Choice Of Law In Diversity Cases
• Joinder Outline
• Pleadings By Defendant Outline
• Pre Trial Conference And Encouraging Settlement Outline
• Subject Matter Jurisdiction Outline
• Summary Judgment Before Trial Outline
• Trial Outline

• 0 Shopping Cart $ 0.00 -->

Did you fail the bar exam? We have lots of free resources to help you regroup for your next attempt! Check out our guide on what to do if you failed the bar exam , as well as our guide on hiring a bar exam tutor ! And be sure to register for our FREE Failed the Bar Exam Mastery Class (includes daily giveaways)!

Ace Your Law Finals! 🌟 Boost your GPA and class rank with expert private tutoring & premium Law School Study Aids . Elevate your legal mastery — Start Today!

Need a bar exam score boost? Looking for one-on-one attention in your bar prep? Our expert bar exam tutors are ready to help you pass! Sign up early before spots fill up!

Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam – Highly Tested Topics

Civil procedure on the multistate essay exam: what do i need to know.

Are you taking the bar exam in a jurisdiction that administers the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) or the Multistate Essay Exam (MEE)? If so, it’s important to know how Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam looks because it is the most highly tested subject! Civil Procedure has appeared on the UBE 11 times on the last 14 exams! Below we tell you the most frequently tested issues in Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam.

1. Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to hear a case over a particular person. The Examiners want you to be familiar with how to analyze both general and specific jurisdiction. There are three bases for general jurisdiction – presence, consent, and domicile. If none of these are present, then go on to analyze specific jurisdiction (minimum contacts test). Lastly, make sure that if a court has personal jurisdiction over an individual that it also complies with the Due Process Clause.

Occasionally, the Examiners have tested whether putting a product in the stream of commerce is enough for personal jurisdiction to exist. Be familiar with the different approaches set forth in the US Supreme Court case Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court .

  2.  Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction is also one of the most common issues in Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam. Remember that subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the federal courts to hear a particular case. Subject matter jurisdiction can appear in several ways:

Federal Question Jurisdiction

• The easiest way for federal question jurisdiction to exist is if the plaintiff asserts a claim that is a federal question created by federal law (e.g., the United States Constitution, federal statutes). Look at the face of the plaintiff’s complaint! Also, remember that federal question jurisdiction does not exist if the plaintiff merely anticipates that the defendants will raise a defense based in federal law.

Diversity Jurisdiction

• To find that diversity jurisdiction is present you must find that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Every now and then the Examiners well test some of the nuances of diversity jurisdiction, including: 1) an executor is from the same state as the decedent for diversity purposes; 2) whether diversity exists is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed; and 3) the “legal certainty” test is used to see if the amount in controversy has been satisfied.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

• Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that do not meet the elements of federal question or diversity jurisdiction. If you see a fact pattern where a party is trying to add a claim to case that is already in federal court, first check whether federal question or diversity jurisdiction exists! If neither is present, only then should you analyze supplemental jurisdiction. Be mindful of the restrictions placed on a plaintiff’s ability to add claims using supplemental jurisdiction.

3. Service of Process

Furthermore, be aware of the details concerning service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are four ways to serve an individual: 1) serve according to state law methods where the federal court is located or where service is made, 2) serve an agent of the individual, 3) serve the individual directly, or 4) leave a copy of the summons and complaint at the individual’s abode with someone of suitable age and discretion.

You should also be familiar with the different ways to serve a corporation. Again, you may comply with state law methods where the district court is located or where service is made. Or you can deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer or managing agent of the corporation.

Lastly, remember if the defendant is challenging the validity of service of process, she must do so in her first response to the plaintiff or it may be waived.

Venue determines in which judicial district a Plaintiff may file a lawsuit. We already know that a federal court has the power to hear the case. But we must narrow down which federal court(s) can hear the case.  Sometimes the Examiners have tested how to determine venue for an individual or a corporation.

The Examiners can also test venue in the context of conflict of laws. Specifically, the Examiners want you to know which law applies when venue is transferred to a more appropriate forum (the law of the transferor court). Or you will be tested on which law applies when a case is transferred to judicial district with a proper venue (the law of the of the transferee state).

As you are studying, also make sure that you memorize the rules for the aforementioned areas and understand how they have been tested on previous MEEs. Use this as a starting point and then go on to reviewing the rules for other topics, such as removal, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

We hope this post on Civl Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam is helpful!

Ambika, one of our bar exam tutors, wrote this post on Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam. She has passed three bar exams, including California, New York, and New Jersey. Ambika scored in the 95 percentile on the MBE, and specializes in helping students raise their uniform bar exam scores!

Seeking mee expertise.

🌟 Freebies & Discounts

• Free Bar Exam Resource Center : Explore for leading guides, articles, and webinars.
• Expert-Crafted Bar Exam Guides : Unveil insights on high-frequency MEE topics and strategies for success.
• Free Webinars : Engage with top bar exam experts.

🔥 Top-Rated MEE Resources

• MEE One-Sheets : Boost your confidence with our most popular bar exam product!
• Bar Exam Outlines : Our comprehensive and condensed bar exam outlines present key information in an organized, easy-to-digest layout.
• NEW MEE Mastery Class : Unearth focused, engaging reviews of essential MEE topics.
• Bar Exam Crash Course and Mini Outlines : Opt for a swift, comprehensive refresher.
• MEE Private Tutoring and feedback : Elevate your approach with tailored success strategies.
• MEE Course : Preview our acclaimed five-star program for unmatched instruction, outlines, and questions.

🔥 NEW! Dive deep into our Repeat Taker Bar Exam Course and discover our unrivaled Platinum Guarantee Pass Program .

Related posts

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Public Interest

By using this site, you allow the use of cookies, and you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service .

Cookie and Privacy Settings

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Finished Papers

Essays service custom writing company - The key to success

Quality is the most important aspect in our work! 96% Return clients; 4,8 out of 5 average quality score; strong quality assurance - double order checking and plagiarism checking.

To describe something in great detail to the readers, the writers will do my essay to appeal to the senses of the readers and try their best to give them a live experience of the given subject.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

There Is a Part of Modern Life That Is So Essential Armies Should Never Attack It Again

By Peter Fairley

Mr. Fairley is a journalist who has covered power technology and policy for over 20 years.

In late March, after two years of withering attacks on Ukraine, Russia knocked out half of Ukraine’s power supply. Up to that point, Russia’s missiles and kamikaze drones had mostly targeted the Ukrainian substations that push electricity from power plants to consumers. But this time they hit the plants themselves, severely damaging and destroying hydroelectric and fossil fuel stations — all of which are difficult to repair or replace.

When power stops, life grinds to a halt. Lights go out. Sewage treatment stops. Clean water stops. Electric cars, buses and trolleys stop. Elevators stop, trapping older and disabled people. For many, home heating, refrigeration, cooking and clothes washing stops, along with medical devices such as oxygen generators.

Even though the world’s dependence on electricity for all of this and more is growing, power grids are still legitimate military targets, according to both international law and our own military rule book. But there are small, promising signs that could be changing. Early last month, before Russia’s most damaging assaults, the International Criminal Court in The Hague concluded that the country’s pummeling of Ukraine’s power system had already crossed the line and issued arrest warrants for a pair of senior Russian commanders, Adm. Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov and Lt. Gen. Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash, whose units are accused of launching the missiles. (Russia has denied committing war crimes.)

It was the world’s first prosecution of combatants for attacks on a power grid and an important first step toward recognizing electricity’s growing centrality to modern life. But the global community must now draw bright lines for combatants in future conflicts — and strengthen the hand of future prosecutors — by codifying specific protections for power grids. The international community already attempts to do that for select infrastructure, including hospitals, dams and nuclear power plants, via the Geneva Conventions. It’s time to add power grids to that privileged roster.

For decades, armies have routinely attacked power grids during war. Germany targeted Britain’s grid from zeppelins in World War I, and NATO jets targeted power plants in Serbia in 1999. The civilian fallout from these attacks can be devastating: When the United States knocked out Baghdad’s electricity in 1991 in the Persian Gulf war, water and sewage treatment were disrupted, sparking typhoid and cholera epidemics.

International law is supposed to curb these kinds of attacks; the laws set out in the Geneva Conventions consider power grids “civilian objects,” to be protected in war. But in practice, thanks to myriad exceptions, militaries can justify nearly any attack where anticipated gains outweigh the projected civilian suffering.

Governments often point to electricity’s role in everything from political and military communications to arms manufacturing. According to Russia’s Defense Ministry , the massive strikes last month were necessary because they disrupted enterprises making and repairing “weapons, equipment and ammunition.” But it would seem that the real goal was to terrorize and break the Ukrainian people. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, said as much while explaining grid attacks in November 2022 that left 10 million people without power: “The unwillingness of the Ukrainian side to settle the problem, to start negotiations, its refusal to seek common ground, this is their consequence.”

In its Department of Defense Law of War Manual updated last year, the United States says that it views power plants as important enough to a state’s military functions “to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.” The Pentagon rule book dismisses civilian injuries and deaths caused by blackouts as too “remote” and “myriad” for field commanders to accurately calculate and encourages them to consider only the civilians affected “very soon after the attack,” such as those at a hospital directly connected to a power plant. But even in that case, the manual hews to the general rule for civilian infrastructure, advising American forces to stand down only where the harm of powering down life support will be “excessive” relative to the gains.

Unsurprisingly, even U.S. military experts on the law of armed conflict have taken divergent stands on Russia’s grid attacks in Ukraine, attacks it continued last week. “At least some” violated international law, wrote one . Another found it hard to “definitively” identify a criminal act.

The three-judge International Criminal Court panel said it had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the officers they seek to apprehend committed crimes against humanity. That charge applies to unlawful acts that are widespread or systematic, and Russia’s grid attacks keep intensifying.

Our military began scaling down its attacks on electrical grids over 20 years ago. Gregory Noone — a captain and former judge advocate in the U.S. Navy who has trained government officials in Rwanda, Afghanistan and Russia in the laws of war — told me he saw a shift in U.S. behavior between the Persian Gulf war and the Iraq war. “We, the U.S. military, took great pride in the fact that we turned all the lights off in Baghdad in the first gulf war. We wiped out their electric grid,” Dr. Noone said. But by the time of the Iraq war, “we realized that wasn’t such a good idea.”

Other countries would be wise to follow our lead and reject wholesale attacks on the grid. It would save lives and prevent needless destruction; it would also help build an unwritten (yet enforceable) body of international law constraining power grid attacks.

But the international community can and should go further. A strong grid protection protocol that explicitly limits power system destruction could be a game changer. It would ratchet up the threat of prosecution, potentially deterring bad actors who might otherwise be tempted to target power generators. The International Criminal Court said a desire to stop further attacks prompted it to unseal the warrants for General Kobylash and Admiral Sokolov. The hope is that field officers directing missiles and drones may think twice before they order these kinds of attacks in the future.

While Mr. Putin may never face consequences for plunging Ukraine into darkness, General Kobylash and Admiral Sokolov may never leave Russia, for fear of being picked up outside its borders to face trial. If they do, a reckoning could yet lie ahead for those who would thrust civilians into darkness. Prosecutors who pursue war criminals can keep hunting for decades.

Peter Fairley is a journalist who has covered power technology and policy for over 20 years.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .