Notes on Personal Jurisdiction: Framework, Key Cases, and Exam Practice
Exam logistics and course context
Acknowledge and thank students for sharing notes; emphasize the importance of caring for one another in law school.
Reminder: grading is anonymous; the Ski and Snowboard Club first meeting is today at noon in this room.
Midterm overview: a take-home, ungraded (practice) midterm with 11 questions, 30-minute base time, accessible on Brightspace after class next Tuesday.
Time and accommodations:
You’ll have up to a week to complete the exam; clock starts when you begin.
Time options: 30, 45, or 60 minutes depending on accommodations; timer is displayed in Brightspace and can be hidden or shown per user preference.
If you have accommodations for longer time, Brightspace will reflect it; a timer will run accordingly.
Exam mechanics:
11 questions with point values of either 6 or 10 points; some questions are more complex with more moving parts.
On the screen, next to each question, you’ll see the points available; plan your time accordingly.
Advice: avoid spending excessive time on a single hard question; if a question is worth 10 points, each 10-point item carries that weight, so don’t “burn” nine minutes on one item at the expense of others.
The midterm is not open-book or open-note except for a provided course book with statutes and constitution text; note that relying on notes is discouraged and cheating is an ethical issue that will be reported.
Exam purpose:
Diagnostic to assess understanding and test-taking skills under typical law-school conditions.
There will be a subsequent, more formal midterm with real grading; a question-by-question review will be posted after the exam, and a live in-person review may occur for those who attend.
Logistics of access and records:
Class recordings and recordings from prior classes are in the course media gallery; no need to email the professor for access.
The midterm appears under Assessments > Quizzes as "SIPPRO midterm one" and unlocks when the exam window opens; once you start, the timer runs.
If you miss class, you’ll still have time to complete the midterm during the window and participate in the review session later.
Important exam practice note:
The exam is multiple-choice with about three true/false items; no essays and no required case citation; you should be able to describe cases so the examiner can credit the citation in substance.
You may tab, highlight, or outline the statutes in the provided book; however, you should not rely on “reading notes” as a substitute for understanding the material.
Some questions may be reviewed if more than ~70% of the class misses them; the instructor may revisit questions and adjust scoring as needed.
Core subject focus for today: personal jurisdiction and the “contacts, relationship, and fairness” framework, with attention to major cases (Keeton/Hustler; Calder; Burger King; Ford; Bristol-Myers Squibb; International Shoe; Worldwide Volkswagen) and related doctrine (long-arm statutes, forum selection vs choice of law, etc.).
Ethical reminder: discuss the ongoing role of ethics in course materials and exam conduct.
Three-step framework for personal jurisdiction (International Shoe lineage)
Step 1: Contacts
Focus on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state; contacts must be deliberate and voluntary, creating a connection to the forum.
Considerations include presence, activities, and ongoing relationship with the forum state; the plaintiff’s residence or activities in the state are not the controlling factor at this step.
The flashy syntheses: the defendant’s deliberate availment of the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws.
Step 2: Relationship (connection)
The plaintiff’s claim must arise out of, or relate to, the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
This is the core test for establishing a meaningful link between the forum-state contacts and the plaintiff’s claim.
Step 3: Fairness (five-factor test)
If the first two steps are met, courts balance the five fairness factors to determine if jurisdiction is reasonable:
The factors include: the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest, the plaintiff’s interest, the interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution, and the shared interest in furthering substantive social policies.
Key concept: personal jurisdiction is not about finding the single “best” forum; it’s about whether a state’s extension of jurisdiction is conscionable under the Constitution.
General vs. specific jurisdiction
General jurisdiction exists where the defendant’s contacts with the forum are so continuous and systematic that the forum can hear any claim against the defendant (often tied to incorporation or principal place of business for corporations).
Specific jurisdiction exists when the claim arises from or relates to the defendant’s forum-state contacts.
Long-arm statutes and constitutional limits
States’ long-arm statutes delineate the reach of the state’s courts; federal courts rely on those statutes to determine whether exercising jurisdiction comports with due process.
Rule 4(k) (federal rule) integrates state long-arm reach with federal forums, ensuring consistency and limiting forum-shopping incentives.
Core case previews and takeaway themes
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945)
Foundation for minimum contacts; established that due process requires some relatedness between the defendant’s contacts and the forum state.
Key concept: minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice.
World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1970)
Foreseeability as a factor, but not a standalone basis for jurisdiction; there is no sliding scale—jurisdiction requires proper contacts and relationships under the three-step framework.
Foreseeability is not enough on its own; the defendant must have purposely availed themselves of the forum to render jurisdiction reasonable.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine (Hustler Penthouse-related discussion in class)
Emphasizes that plaintiffs’ connections to the forum state alone do not determine jurisdiction; the analysis concentrates on defendant’s contacts and the relation to the claim.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (franchise case; Florida forum)
Facts: Burger King sued Michigan franchisees in Florida; contract governed by Florida law; defendant’s contacts in Florida were extensive; the forum was chosen for convenience and to apply Florida law.
Florida long-arm principles and Rule 4(k) interaction; the distinction between forum selection and choice-of-law provisions; considerations of the defendant’s deliberate and continuous relationships.
Key points: forum selection vs choice-of-law; proper service under Rule 4(k); the concept of “arising out of or relating to” relationships; and the importance of predictable, non-incentivized federal jurisdiction.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (two related cases)
Core question: Do Ford’s contacts with Montana/Minnesota support jurisdiction when the alleged defects relate to specific vehicles (not a general product line), and can the court exercise jurisdiction under the three-step framework?
Test rearticulated: the claim must arise out of or relate to Ford’s forum-state contacts; the “but-for” causation argument is discussed but not required as the sole basis—“arises out of” encompasses a broader, stronger connection (the “strong relationship” concept).
Kagan majority: adds nuance to “relates to” beyond but-for causation; emphasizes pervasiveness of Ford’s presence and advertising as evidence of relatedness, even when the exact incident didn’t occur in the forum.
Gorsuch concurrence/dissent: notes a potential critique of the overall framework; highlights ongoing debates about International Shoe-era test boundaries.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (class action; California focus)
Distinguishes claims of California plaintiffs from those outside California; the class-action device complicates jurisdiction where the relationship between claims and forum state varies by subclass.
Emphasizes that jurisdiction may not extend to all non-resident plaintiffs solely on nationwide advertisements unless a substantial connection to the forum state exists for each claim.
Calder v. Jones (Calder effect; publication-based injuries)
Defamation and publication-based torts: injury location is where the false statements are heard; targeted, intentional conduct toward a state’s residents can support jurisdiction, especially where the injury and the defendant’s conduct are tightly connected to that state’s activities.
Important nuance for internet-era publications: the location-specific reach and targeting can influence personal jurisdiction, but the standard remains case-specific and debated.
Maine long-arm statute (illustrative of state variation)
Maine approach shows a broad reach with a catchall clause consistent with the US Constitution; contrast with California/New York approaches that focus on specific enumerated bases or more limited reach.
Practical lessons from the Ford/Bristol-Myers/Calder line for student practice
Ford shows how broad advertising and pervasive market presence can create a “strong relationship” between forum contacts and claims, supporting jurisdiction even when the incident isn’t tied to the forum.
Bristol-Myers Squibb cautions against over-extending jurisdiction in class actions; relationships must be carefully traced to specific claims.
Calder highlights the evolving nature of internet-based defamation and the need to analyze where publication is heard, the targeting behind online activity, and the location of the injury.
Ford Motor Co. (specifics on the “arises out of” vs “relates to” formulation)
Core question: Do Ford’s contacts with the forum (Montana, Minnesota) connect to the claims about defects in specific vehicles?
Test language and interpretation
Arises out of: strong causal link between the contact and the claim; there must be a direct causal connection.
Relates to: a broader relationship between contacts and the claim; may be satisfied by a strong, pervasive connection to the defendant’s forum-state presence, even if not strictly but-for causation.
Majority view (Kagan): “Arises out of” maps to but-for causation in practice, but “relates to” requires a robust relational link; the two are not necessarily identical and should be treated as distinct inquiries with the latter allowing broader factual grounding (e.g., national branding, omnipresent market penetration).
Illustrative living examples discussed in class
Advertisements and national branding create a pervasive presence that makes the forum a reasonable locus for litigation about a specific product line.
Purchasing a car in a forum state (e.g., Minnesota) can create a strong enough connection to support jurisdiction for claims arising from that same vehicle or related products.
Key takeaways for application in hypotheticals
If the plaintiff’s claim arises in the same state where the product was purchased or where a significant service or maintenance occurred, “arises out of” is easier to satisfy.
If the claim is about a fleet-wide issue but can plausibly be tied to a forum-state marketing/advertising activity, a strong “relates to” link may still be possible with a robust set of facts.
Bristol-Myers Squibb and the class-action nuance (context for jurisdictional scope)
Bristol-Myers Squibb involved 550 plaintiffs from outside California; the court held that California could not exercise jurisdiction over claims unrelated to California where the injury occurred outside California.
Implication for Ford-style reasoning: jurisdiction must be anchored in the forum’s connection to the particular claims of the plaintiffs; a national advertising presence alone is not always enough for all plaintiffs in a nationwide class action.
Practical guidance for exam answers: distinguish “arises out of” vs “relates to” and understand how class actions affect which claims belong in a given forum.
Calder venom and the Internet-era defamation (the publication question)
Calder’s core intuition: defamation is special because the injury occurs where the statement is heard, implying a higher likelihood of jurisdiction in the target state when the defaming conduct is aimed there.
The “Calder effect” and its limits in the online context:
If online conduct is targeted to individuals in a state, it may support jurisdiction; if not, it’s weaker.
The fact pattern with online ads and social media remains fact-intensive and controversial; many courts are still sorting out the exact boundaries in the era of the Internet.
Practical takeaway: when defending a defamation suit involving online statements, analyze where the statements are likely heard and whether the conduct was purposefully directed at the forum state.
Practical exam-oriented hypotheticals discussed in class
Hypothetical 1: International Shoe (Patricia) in Washington, 1938 purchase; injury in 1942; suit in 1943
Contacts: direct business presence via a Washington salesperson; strong connection to the forum.
Relationship: injury arises from interactions with the company in Washington; likely PJ under modern standards.
Fairness: likely satisfied given the defendant’s ongoing presence in Washington.
Conclusion: personal jurisdiction would likely be established in Washington.
Hypothetical 2: International Shoe (Panels) in Utah 1938; injury in Washington 1940; six independent sales reps in Washington
Contacts: multiple sales reps in Washington, plus nationwide presence and advertising.
Relationship: injury result ties to a broader pattern of sales in multiple states; relates to the claim through a broader marketing network.
Conclusion: Ford-style reasoning could support PJ in Washington.
Hypothetical 3: Pacs moves to Delaware; injury occurs there; questions of general jurisdiction
General jurisdiction: if the defendant is incorporated in Delaware, a plaintiff may sue there for any matter, irrespective of ties to the injury.
This demonstrates the perimeter of general jurisdiction and why corporate residency is critical.
Verdict case outline (Nerium/Miriam; defamation and internet presence)
Parties and roles:
NeriumMediated: Nerium International (MLM skincare company using oleander-based products).
Defendants’ allies: John Sanderson and George Taylor (Verdict and the “truth pair of ducks”) acting as public-relations consultants.
Factual backdrop:
Documents and posts on social media criticizing Nerium’s products (oleander-based) and public health claims.
The defendants reportedly imply wrongdoing and threaten brand reputation; the plaintiffs allege defamation and related torts.
The case involves dynamic issues around publication via the Internet, online persona, and potential PJ concerns based on where publication occurs and who the audience is.
Calder-like reasoning in verdict context:
The question becomes whether the defendant’s internet communications constitute targeted conduct toward a state (e.g., California) that would support personal jurisdiction.
The court’s assessment will hinge on the nature of online activity, the reach and targeting of the communications, and the location where the injury is felt (the audience).
Takeaway for exam practice:
The verdict scenario emphasizes that the internet expands and complicates personal jurisdiction analyses; a plaintiff’s ability to establish jurisdiction depends on the defendant’s deliberate targeting and the location of the injury or the audience.
Quick glossary of terms and key distinctions
Forum state: the state where litigation is filed; also called the state where the court sits.
Court of general jurisdiction: typically state courts that hear most types of cases.
Long-arm statute: state law permitting its courts to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.
Rule 4(k): federal jurisdictional rule linking federal jurisdiction to state long-arm reach and service requirements.
Forum selection clause: contract clause designating where litigation will occur.
Choice-of-law clause: contract clause designating which state’s law applies regardless of where litigation occurs.
Arises out of: a strong causal connection between the defendant’s forum-state contacts and the plaintiff’s claim; often interpreted as but-for cause in practice.
Relates to: a broader connection between the defendant’s contacts and the claim; does not require strict but-for causation; requires a “strong relationship” between contacts and the claim.
But-for causation: a standard of causation where the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions.
Proximate cause: a closer causal link; often used in tort law to determine liability.
Foreseeability: a consideration in some jurisdictional analyses, but not a standalone basis for creating PJ; part of the balancing in fairness factors.
Special appearance: a procedural vehicle used in some contexts to contest personal jurisdiction; not always required in federal court.
General vs. specific PJ: general PJ allows suit on any claim in the forum; specific PJ requires a connection between the claim and the defendant’s forum-state activities.
Ethical and practical implications for exam preparation
Understand the three-step framework (contacts, relationship, fairness) and be able to apply it to varied fact patterns.
Distinguish clearly between ‘arises out of’ and ‘relates to,’ and be ready to justify why a given fact pattern satisfies one or the other.
Be prepared to argue both sides of the issue, including how a court might treat a defendant’s sophisticated business practices (e.g., widespread advertising, omnipresent branding) when establishing jurisdiction.
Use analogies to Ford to discuss how pervasive business models can create a “strong relationship” with a forum state, even if a specific incident isn’t tied to that state.
When evaluating internet-era cases, focus on: targeting, audience, and location of injury; defense may hinge on whether the conduct was directed at a specific state.
Ethics: remember the professional obligation not to cheat or encourage dishonest conduct; the midterm is diagnostic and practice-oriented to assess understanding and skills.
Recap: what to study before the next class
The three-step PJ framework and how it maps onto actual cases.
The difference between general and specific jurisdiction, and how forum-state presence interacts with each.
The role of long-arm statutes and Rule 4(k) in federal practice.
The key holdings and nuances from Ford, Burger King, Keeton, Calder, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Worldwide Volkswagen; plus the implications for internet publication cases.
The practical approach to applying these tests to hypothetical fact patterns, focusing on the strongest, clearest connections first and supporting with facts that demonstrate purposeful availment and relatedness.
Review the exam logistics once more, including the timing, access, and rules about notes, as well as the importance of using the practice midterm to build test-taking stamina.