Personal Jurisdiction
Can this court reach this defendant? Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, this one protects the defendant—so the defendant can consent to it, and loses the objection by not raising it immediately.
The attack order
Can the forum reach the defendant?
Shortcuts first, then statute, then Constitution.
A traditional basis—domicile, in-state service, or consent?
Jurisdiction, done. No contacts analysis needed.
Does the state's long-arm statute authorize the reach?
No jurisdiction—even if the Constitution would allow it.
Did the defendant purposefully avail itself of the forum?
No jurisdiction. Unilateral acts by others don't count.
At home here—or does the claim relate to the forum contacts?
No jurisdiction. General needs “at home”; specific needs the case-link.
Jurisdiction—if it's also reasonable
Fair play & substantial justice is the last box.
Traditional bases: the shortcuts
Domicile (or, for a company, “at home”). Presence—personally served while voluntarily in the forum: “tag” jurisdiction, valid even for a weekend visit (Burnham v. Superior Court). Consent—express (forum-selection clause, registered agent) or implied by appearing and defending on the merits without objecting.
Rosa flies into State A for a weekend salsa expo and is handed a summons at her booth—tagged. State A can hear the case even though she was only there two days.
Step one for everything else: the long-arm statute
The state must authorize the reach before the Constitution matters. Full-reach long-arms extend to the limits of due process (skip straight to contacts). Laundry-list long-arms enumerate acts—an in-state tort, in-state business, in-state property—and reach no further.
Liv's online store has plenty of contacts with State B, but State B's long-arm covers only in-state torts and in-state contracts. If Lana's claim fits neither box, the court can't reach Liv—contacts or not.
Minimum contacts: purposeful availment
The defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum—deliberately reaching in to do business, cause effects, or enjoy the state's protections—such that being sued there is foreseeable. The plaintiff's or a third party's unilateral act never counts as the defendant's contact (World-Wide Volkswagen).
Stream of commerce: goods drifting into the forum on their own isn't availment. Stream plus targeting—marketing there, designing for that market, serving it—is (Asahi, McIntyre). On an essay, flag both views.
Rosa ships her salsa to twenty stores across State A—purposeful availment. Lana packing one jar in her suitcase and carrying it to State C is Lana's act, not Rosa's.
General vs. specific
- Defendant is at home: an individual's domicile; a corporation's state of incorporation + principal place of business (Daimler, Goodyear)
- Suable there on any claim, from anywhere in the world
- “Does lots of business there” is not enough
- The claim must arise out of or relate to the forum contacts
- “Relate to” has real width: systematically serving a market supports claims by forum residents injured there—even if that unit was sold elsewhere (Ford v. Montana)
- Contacts assessed defendant-by-defendant, claim-by-claim
Noodle Corp. (Delaware inc., State A headquarters) is at home in both—Lana can sue it there over anything. In State B, where it merely advertises and sells, Lana's salsa-jar injury in State B qualifies for specific jurisdiction; her unrelated employment dispute from State D doesn't.
Fair play & substantial justice
With contacts established, jurisdiction must still be reasonable: weigh the burden on the defendant, the forum's interest, the plaintiff's interest in relief, and judicial efficiency. It takes a compelling case of unfairness to defeat jurisdiction once purposeful contacts exist—but recite the factors on an essay.
Liv, a one-woman bakery in State D, mails a single $200 order to a State A customer. Dragging Liv across the country over $200 may flunk fair play—the rare pattern where reasonableness actually wins.
And separately: notice
Due process also requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the defendant (Mullane), plus service that complies with Rule 4: personal delivery; leaving process at the dwelling with a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there; an authorized agent; or any method the forum state allows.
Where the points are
The traps examiners actually set.
- Most tested
- Specific jurisdiction's arise-out-of/relate-to link; general jurisdiction limited to “at home” (incorporation + headquarters); tag jurisdiction surviving a brief visit; the long-arm statute as a separate first step.
- Classic traps
- Counting the plaintiff's unilateral contact as the defendant's; “does lots of business there” as general jurisdiction (not since Daimler); the defendant who answers on the merits and objects later (waived—raise PJ in the first response); confusing PJ (waivable) with SMJ (never waivable).
Keep going: PJ flowchart Civ Pro Attack Sequences SMJ deep dive