Dashboard
Module 4, Personal Jurisdiction, page 3 of 7
Minimum Contacts
By the end of this page you will be able to separate general jurisdiction from specific jurisdiction on the facts of a problem, and to say which branch a court is using before you argue whether the contacts are sufficient. Students lose points on this unit far more often for arguing the wrong branch than for arguing a branch badly.
Where the Test Comes From
International Shoe replaced a presence rule with a relationship rule. The question stopped being whether the defendant was physically in the forum and became whether the defendant had contacts with the forum such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. That phrase does a lot of work and it is worth being precise about which half of it you are relying on.
The Two Branches
- General jurisdiction. The defendant is at home in the forum, so the forum may hear any claim against them, related or not.
- Specific jurisdiction. The claim itself arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum.
| Question | General | Specific |
|---|---|---|
| What is being tested | Where the defendant is at home | Whether the claim relates to the contacts |
| Typical corporate answer | State of incorporation, principal place of business | Wherever the deal or the harm happened |
| Claims reachable | Any claim | Only the related claim |
Check yourself before you continue
A trucking company incorporated in Nebraska, headquartered in Nebraska, is sued in Arizona over a collision on Interstate 10. Which branch are you in, and what is the single fact that decides it? Write your answer down before you open the knowledge check, then compare.
What to Read Next
The guided practice for this module walks three fact patterns, one of which is deliberately a general jurisdiction problem dressed in specific jurisdiction language. Do it before the knowledge check rather than after; the practice is where the feedback lives and the check is only the measurement.