1. Home
  2. Knowledge Base
  3. Business Law
  4. Civil Litigation
  5. Personal Jurisdiction: Minimum Contacts Standard

Personal Jurisdiction: Minimum Contacts Standard

Cite this article as: Jason Mance Gordon, "Personal Jurisdiction: Minimum Contacts Standard," in The Business Professor, updated January 6, 2015, last accessed March 29, 2020, https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/personal-jurisdiction/.
Video Thumbnail
Personal Jurisdiction - Minimum Contacts Standard
This video explains the Minimum Contacts Standard for determining whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Next Article: Class Actions


Establishing Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction means that the court has authority not only over the subject matter of the case but also over the parties to the case. This is also known as “in personam jurisdiction”, or jurisdiction over the person. In some instances a court cannot establish jurisdiction over a person, but it can establish jurisdiction over real or personal property located within its geographical boundaries. This is known as “in rem jurisdiction”. In practice a court obtains personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff when she files the legal action. By filing a lawsuit in a court, the plaintiff voluntarily submits to or grants the court personal jurisdiction over her. The plaintiff must generally allege in the complaint the grounds for the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Otherwise, the defendant may voluntarily agree to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Of course, the defendant is free to contest a court’s personal jurisdiction. In fact, court procedure allows a defendant to appear before the court with the sole purpose of contesting personal jurisdiction without being subjected to jurisdiction in the process.

  • Note: Personal jurisdiction, in this discussion, applies to civil cases. In criminal cases, a court only has personal jurisdiction over a party who commits a crime in that state. Other states will often extradite individuals charged with crimes to the state in which charges are filed.

Service of Process

The primary method of obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant is through service of process. This means that the court must deliver notice of the litigation (a summons) to the defendant. The summons provides notice to the defendant to appear in court. The plaintiff must also include a copy of the complaint at the time of delivering the summons. In some circumstances, a plaintiff may serve process on a defendant without personally delivering a summons. If, for example, a defendant is known to be in an area but cannot be found, court procedure may allow for the effective delivery of notice  by other methods. This may include delivery to the last known address, delivery to immediate family members, and publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

Discussion: A recent state case allowed for service of process via Facebook message. Do you believe that service of process should be delivered personally to a defendant? Or do you support alternative methods of notification, such as electronic posting? Do you think alternative methods of providing notice of litigation affect an individual’s due process rights?

Discussion Input

  • There is a strong argument that serving a defendant personally is necessary to maintain due process. States routinely establish alternative methods of service that are acceptable for service of process. For example, if the plaintiff tries to serve the defendant personally but he or she is unable to find the defendant based on various reasons, such as last known address. The plaintiff can therefore serve the defendant in a manner that will be convenient in that situation and that the defendant will get the summons. Electronic posting is another form of technology that will be increasingly necessary.

The Long-Arm Statute

In order to serve the summons on the defendant, she must generally be within the state at the time of delivery. There is, however, a common exception that allows a court to serve process on a defendant located outside of the state’s boundaries. This is known as the “long-arm statute”. Limitations on the long-arm statute are as follows:

  • Due Process – Serving process on a defendant is subject to the constitutional right to due process of law. As such, a state’s long-arm statute must meet constitutional due process requirements.
  • Minimum Contacts – To meet constitutional standards, the long-arm statute can only be used to serve process on a defendant who is located outside of the state if she has “minimum contacts” with the state. Minimum contacts means that the defendant has sufficient contact with the state to not “offend the notions of fair play and substantial justice”.

What is Minimum Contacts?

  • A court may be able to legally serve a summons on a defendant who is out-of-state if one of the following are met:
  • Resident of State – The defendant is a resident of the same state as the court.
  • Instate Activity – The defendant committed the action within the state that is the subject of the litigation. The defendant may have committed a tort or entered into the business deal that was the subject of the litigation.
  • Owns Property – The defendant may own property located in the state that is the subject of the litigation. This is known as “in rem” jurisdiction. This would include a lawsuit challenging property ownership rights.
  • Voluntary Submission – The defendant may voluntarily submit to personal jurisdiction in the court. She can do this by written waiver or by just showing up to court and not contesting jurisdiction.
  • Presence in the State – Remember, the court may serve process on a defendant if she is present in the state for any reason. The primary exception is that a party can appear in court for the purpose of contesting personal jurisdiction and not subject herself to the court’s authority by doing so.
  • Registered in the State – A business is subject to jurisdiction in its state of incorporation or any state in which the defendant business is registered.

Discussion: Suppose a defendant technically committed the tort in a state, but really has very little contact or ties with the state otherwise. For example, Dave builds a product in Georgia and ships it to California. The product is defective and hurts the purchaser. Dave technically caused harm in California, but does not otherwise have any contacts with the state. Is this sufficient minimum contacts for the California court to exercise jurisdiction over Dave?

Discussion Input

  • Per the International Shoe standard, it is not likely that Dave has “minimum contacts” with California necessary to not “offend notions of fair play and substantial justice.” In said case, the court held that simply placing a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is insufficient contacts to establish personal jurisdiction.

Practice Question: Claire lives in Georgia and purchases a pair of shoes online from Waylon’s Shoe Sales. Waylon’s is located in California. Waylon’s only has physical locations in California, but he sells via the Internet throughout the United States. He does, however, routinely employ sales agents to attend trade shows and make sales calls in every state. When Claire’s shoes arrive, she wears them out to dinner. On the way out of the house, the heel of the shoe breaks and Claire falls to the ground. She suffers a torn ligament in her knee. She plans on suing Waylon’s in Georgia’s superior court for negligent manufacture of the product. What personal jurisdiction issues exist in this case?

Proposed Answer

  • The court would have to determine whether Waylon has adequate contact with the state to establish personal jurisdiction. Here, he has a commercial presence in the state, including: shipping products, attending trade shows, and making sales calls. This is likely sufficient, given the physical presence of employees as agents of the business.

Academic Research

Solimine, Michael, The Quiet Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction (January 1998). Tulane Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 2, 1998. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=140313

Robertson, Cassandra Burke and Rhodes, Charles W. (Rocky), The Business of Personal Jurisdiction (May 26, 2017). 68 Case Western Reserve Law Review 775 (2017); Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-11. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2975517

Nash, Jonathan, National Personal Jurisdiction (February 6, 2018). Emory Legal Studies Research Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3119383 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3119383

Dodson, Scott, Personal Jurisdiction and Aggregation (February 23, 2018). 113 Northwestern University Law Review 1 (2018); UC Hastings Research Paper No. 273. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3129100

Florey, Katherine, What Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine Does – And What it Should Do (July 10, 2017). UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper; Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2999998

Dodge, William S. and Dodson, Scott, Personal Jurisdiction and Aliens (August 22, 2017). 116 Michigan Law Review 1205 (2018); UC Hastings Research Paper No. 249. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3024207

Was this article helpful?