PERSONAL JURISDICTION – WHAT STATE?

(“IT’S A MINIMUM CONTACTS THING”)

Was ∆ present in the forum state YES There is Valid General PJ – presence is valid basis (split decision in
when process was served on him? Burnham re: why – Brennan (reasonable) Scalia (tradition)

NO

NO
Does the forum state’s long arm No PJ - even if min. contacts (i.e. const. basis), still need statutory
statue provide for PJ over ∆? basis as well if ∆ not served while present in the state

YES

Is any of the following true?

∆ is domiciled in the f.s. (or is a
corp incorporated in the f.s.)?
There is Valid PJ – contacts are so voluntary & unambiguous that they
∆ has consented to be sued in the YES
automatically constitute “minimum contacts” and entitle f.s. to exercise
f.s.?
PJ over ∆ whether contacts are related or not (General PJ)
∆ owns property in the f.s.?
∆ regularly transacts business in the
f.s.?
NO

No PJ - ∆ did not purposefully

Are at least some of ∆’s contacts YES
avail himself of the laws &
with f.s. voluntary?
benefits of the f.s. (Hanson)
YES

Does the cause of action arise out of Are ∆’s contacts with the forum No PJ - Contacts will be deemed
NO NO
or relate to ∆’s contact with the state “systematic & continuous”? not “minimum”
state? (i.e. Specific PJ) (i.e. General PJ) (systematic & continuous contacts
are needed where claim does not
YES YES
relate to ∆’s contacts with the f.s.
Are ∆’s contacts w/ the f.s. sufficiently great that they should be deemed to establish General PJ – Perkins)
“minimum contacts”? - could ∆ have reasonably have anticipated being
haled to court in f.s.?
Specific PJ
McGee – pj – single contact(insurance K) but solicited bus. in CA thus sufficient
Hanson – no pj – unilateral movement of π; no purposeful availment
VW – no pj – unilateral movement of π; no purposeful availment
Kulko – no pj – sending kids to CA; no reasonable anticipation of haled
Keeton – pj – π contact not necessary; distributing magazines sufficient
Calder – pj – actions outside directed at state inside w/ tort conseq NO No PJ – ∆ lacks minimum
BK – pj – long K w/ forum clause; foreseeable to be haled to court in FL contacts with the forum
Stream of Commerce
Gray – pj – stream of commerce. (contemplate use in f.s.; made $ of use)
Asahi – no pj – split (O – aware not enough; B – reasonable anticipation)
General PJ
Perkins – pj – company HQ in f.s. created general pj b/c sys/con contacts
Helicop – no pj – not sys/con contacts; purchases/training not related to accident
In Rem
Shaffer – no pj – mere presence of property in f.s. is not enough to create general
pj; must pass “min” contacts test

YES
NO PJ – Even though ∆
Is jurisdiction reasonable, i.e. does it comport with has minimum contacts w/
“traditional notions of fair play”? Consider… NO f.s., due process prevents Valid Constitutional
burden on ∆ the exercise of PJ Exercise of PJ over ∆
interests of the f.s. (Asahi – b/c foreign ∆’s,
π’s interest of relief in f.s. the burden was too great)
YES