3 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Adv. 93, *
Copyright (c) 1998 Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy
Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy
1998
3 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Adv. 93

Full Text of this Article

ARTICLE: PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND THE INTERNET

Michael MacClary
 

TEXT:

*****

II. History of Personal Jurisdiction

A court may exercise power over a particular defendant if the the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. n21 Limits on a court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction arise from two sources, the United States Constitution and state long-arm statutes. n22 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution permits state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only if sufficient "minimum contacts" exist with the forum state. n23 The party seeking personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant must first show that the out-of-state defendant's actions fell within the parameters of the state's long-arm statute and meet the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. n24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n21 See generally Joseph Glannon, Civil Procedure: Examples and Explanations, 23-28 (3d ed. 1997) (explaining jurisdiction).

n22 U.S. Const. amend. XIV. See, e.g. Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 223A, <sect> 3 (Law. Co-op. 1996); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code <sect> 410.10 (West 1996); N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302 (Consol. 1996).

n23 Glannon, supra note 21, at 4. See Int'l Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945) (ruling that the maintenance of suit does not offend the notions of fair play and substantial justice).

n24 U.S. Const. amend. XIV. See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, <sect> 3 (Law. Co-op. 1996); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code <sect> 410.10 (West 1996); N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302 (Consol. 1996).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

States' long-arm statutes vary, n25 some states have long-arm statutes which allow their courts to exercise jurisdictional power to the full extent allowed under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. n26 Other states have statutory restrictions that specify enumerated situations when courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. n27 Some [*96]  limits are placed on the particular cause of action, while other limits are based on the activities of the defendant. n28

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n25 See Glannon, supra note 21, at 23-28 (discussing state long-arm statutes).

n26 See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code <sect> 410.10 (West 1996).

n27 See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, <sect> 3 (Law. Co-op. 1996); N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302 (Consol. 1996); 110 Ill. Rev. Stat. 2-209 (1996).

n28 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, <sect> 3 (Law. Co-op. 1996).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Supreme Court expounded upon state court's jurisdiction with the landmark decision in International Shoe v. Washington. n29 This case overruled the "presence" standard and allowed jurisdiction over any party with sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state. n30 The decision explained that the maintenance of the suit in the forum state shall be allowed only "according to our traditional conceptions of fair play and substantial justice." n31 In this case, the Supreme Court adopted the current two-prong approach to personal jurisdiction: minimum contacts and reasonableness. n32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n29 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

n30 See International Shoe, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945) (ruling that a state may not make binding judgments on an individual lacking contacts with that state). But see Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-35 (1877) (deciding that personal service and notice are key elements of personal jurisdiction).

n31 International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 320.

n32 See id. at 319-20 (requiring minimum contacts and reasonableness).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In order for the out-of-state defendant to be subject to suit, minimum contacts must be found between the defendant and the forum state. n33 If these contacts to the forum state are found to be continuous and systematic, the state courts would have "general jurisdiction" over the defendant. n34 When general jurisdiction exists, the court will have a sufficient basis for exercising jurisdiction for any cause of action against the defendant. n35 If the court decides contacts are less than continuous and systematic, a court may only exercise jurisdiction if the action arose against the out-of-state defendant from the particular contact of that defendant with the state. n36 Courts refer to this concept as "specific jurisdiction" and grant it in cases involving such isolated acts as a breach of contract n37 or the settlement of a life insurance policy. n38

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n33 See id. at 310 (elaborating on the notion of minimum contacts). See also infra note 87 (expaining the doctrine of minimum contacts).

n34 See generally Helecopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 461 U.S. 955 (1984) (holding that casual contacts are not enough to find general jurisdiction). See Glannon supra note 20, at 12 (defining continuous and systematic contact).

n35 See Perkins v. Benguet, 342 U.S. 437, 448 (1952) (deciding that when activities are sufficiently continuous, due process allows the exercise of jurisdiction).

n36 See Perkins, 342 U.S. at 448-49 (ruling that, if general jurisdiction is found, then the issue need not arise from the contacts). See generally Helecopteros, 461 U.S. 955.

n37 See generally Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (finding jurisdiction over the defendant based on the purposeful making of a contract).

n38 See generally McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 385 U.S. 220 (1957) (finding specific jurisdiction based on a life insurance policy entered into in the forum state).
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*97]

In order for a court to subject a non-resident defendant to a lawsuit, in addition to minimum contacts, the court must find that the defendant purposely availed himself of the benefits and protection of the laws of the state. n39 This doctrine dictates that a party is subject to personal jurisdiction if he could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in that state. n40 The Supreme Court has held that a nationally published magazine could reasonably foresee being haled into court for libel actions in any state where the magazine is sold. n41 The Court, however, did not find jurisdiction over an automobile dealer for selling a car involved in an accident in another state. n42

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n39 See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253-54 (1958) (quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319) (stating that the defendant must "purposely avail itself of the privilege of acting within the state").

n40 See Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253-54 (requiring purposeful availment before granting jurisdiction). See also Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 792 (1984) (determining that jurisdiction is proper when intentional tortious acts are directed into the forum state); Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770, 775 (1984) (holding that circulating magazines in the forum state constitutes adequate minimum contacts). But see World Side Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980) (citing knowledge that a car driven into the forum state is not purposeful availment).

n41 See Calder, 465 U.S. at 790 (ruling that actions intentionally directed to the forum state satisfy minimum contacts); Keeton, 465 U.S. at 781 (finding jurisdiction over the defendant who "continuously and deliberately exploited" the market of the forum state).

n42 See World Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 286 (deciding that mere foreseeability does not satisfy the requirement of purposeful availment).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Even when a court finds minimum contacts, a defendant may still defeat a finding of personal jurisdiction if he can prove that it would be unfair for the court to exercise jurisdiction. n43 The court will base this test on the interests of the defendant, the plaintiff, and the forum state. n44 For example, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that in a business relationship the burden is on the defendant to prove that it is unreasonable for him to defend himself in the forum state. n45 The Supreme Court, however, is split on [*98]  the personal jurisdiction of a defendant who sells goods that are not directed to the forum state but may wind up there through a "stream of commerce." n46

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n43 See generally Glannon, supra note 21, at 5-8 (discussing the reasonableness requirement).

n44 See generally Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473-74 (1985) (ruling that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being sued in Florida based on a contractual relationship).

n45 Id. at 473-74.

n46 Compare Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 105-16 (1987) (finding no substantial connection between the defendant's actions and the forum state), with Asahi Metal, 480 U.S. at 116-21 (Brennan, J., concurring) (concluding that the defendant did purposely avail itself of California laws).
 

*****