Issue: What are the minimum standards for a state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Personal jurisdiction; Non-resident |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 311 U.S. 457; 480 U.S. 102; 466 U.S. 408; 357 U.S. 235; 471 U.S. 462; 326 U.S. 310 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 07/01/2001 |
In the often-cited language of the Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), due process requires that a defendant have “certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'” Id. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). Those minimum contacts must be established by purposeful acts of the defendant, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985); there must be “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws,” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). “In other words, the contacts that are examined must be the purposeful acts of the defendant, not the acts of the plaintiff or any third parties.” Anthem Ins. Cos. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 730 N.E.2d 1227, 1234 (Ind. 2000). Contacts are “‘acts physically performed in the forum state and acts performed outside the forum state that have an effect within the forum.'” Id. at 1235 (quoting 16 James W. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 108.42[2][a] (3d ed. 1999)).
Two types of jurisdiction may be exercised over a nonresident defendant–specific personal jurisdiction or general personal jurisdiction. See Helicopteros Nationales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 414 nn.8-9 […]