Personal Jurisdiction: every key term you need (+ practice quiz)
25 flashcard terms for Civil Procedure Topic 1, written to match the course framework. Study them here, then drill them as interactive flashcards, or test yourself with the 15-question quiz — free, no account needed.
A court's power over the parties before it, limited by the forum state's long-arm statute and by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for state courts and the Fifth Amendment for federal courts.
Pennoyer v. Neff
The 1877 territorial baseline: a state could bind a defendant only through in-state service, property attached at the outset of suit, or consent, tying jurisdiction to physical presence and state sovereignty.
Minimum contacts
The International Shoe standard: a defendant must have contacts with the forum such that suit there does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
The 1945 case replacing rigid territorial presence with a contacts-plus-fairness inquiry, and the source of the modern general and specific jurisdiction categories.
Specific jurisdiction
Jurisdiction that exists when the plaintiff's claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's own contacts with the forum, so the suit is tied to conduct the defendant directed there.
General jurisdiction
All-purpose jurisdiction allowing any claim against a defendant, including claims unrelated to the forum, where the defendant is essentially at home in the state.
At home test
Goodyear and Daimler limit general jurisdiction over a corporation to its place of incorporation and its principal place of business, absent a truly exceptional case.
Daimler AG v. Bauman
The 2014 decision rejecting general jurisdiction based on a subsidiary's substantial California sales, holding that large in-state business does not by itself make a global corporation at home.
Purposeful availment
The requirement that the defendant deliberately reach into the forum to obtain benefits or the protection of its laws, so jurisdiction does not rest on random, fortuitous, or unilateral acts of others.
Hanson v. Denckla
The source of the purposeful availment idea: a Delaware trustee's contact arose only because the settlor moved to Florida, a unilateral act that could not create jurisdiction.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
A regional distributor and dealer could not be sued in Oklahoma merely because a car they sold in New York burned there; foreseeability that a product will travel is not purposeful availment.
Stream of commerce
The contested theory that placing goods into a distribution network reaching the forum supports jurisdiction; the Court has split between mere awareness and awareness plus conduct targeting the state.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
A fractured 1987 decision in which four Justices required additional conduct directed at the forum and four accepted awareness alone, leaving the stream of commerce test unsettled.
J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro
A 2011 plurality rejected jurisdiction over a British manufacturer that targeted the United States generally but not New Jersey specifically, reaffirming state-by-state targeting.
Effects test
Under Calder v. Jones, an intentional act expressly aimed at the forum whose brunt of harm is felt there can support jurisdiction over an out-of-state actor.
Relatedness requirement
The link between claim and contacts; Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court held the claim need only relate to forum contacts, rejecting a strict causation-only rule.
Reasonableness factors
Burger King's fairness screen: burden on the defendant, forum state interest, plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, interstate judicial efficiency, and shared substantive social policies.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
A twenty-year franchise relationship with a Florida franchisor, including a choice-of-law clause and continuing obligations, made Florida jurisdiction fair over a Michigan franchisee.
Transient jurisdiction
Tag jurisdiction based on personal service while the defendant is physically present in the forum; Burnham v. Superior Court upheld it, though the Justices disagreed on the rationale.
Consent to jurisdiction
A party may submit by contract, by appointing an agent for service, by filing suit, or by failing to raise the defense, since personal jurisdiction is a waivable individual right.
Forum selection clause
A contractual designation of where suits must be brought; Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute enforced a form-contract clause absent fraud or fundamental unfairness.
Quasi in rem jurisdiction
Jurisdiction premised on attached property within the state; Shaffer v. Heitner subjected such assertions to the minimum contacts standard, largely collapsing them into personal jurisdiction analysis.
Long-arm statute
The state law authorizing service beyond state borders; some are enumerated act statutes listing covered conduct, while others extend jurisdiction to the full constitutional limit.
Rule 4(k)(1)(A)
A federal court generally borrows the personal jurisdiction reach of the state where it sits, so state long-arm limits apply in most federal diversity and federal question cases.
Rule 4(k)(2)
The federal long-arm gap filler: for federal law claims, a defendant not subject to any single state's courts may still be sued where its nationwide contacts satisfy due process.