PERSONAL

JURISDICTION: GENERAL
PERSONAL JURISDICTION (IPJ)
Constitutional

Statutory

CHART: GENERAL PJ
14th Am. Due Process Clause: (DPC)

notice & opportunity to be heard

Does this have sufficient connection with the FS
so that jurisdiction comports with due process?

Article IV, 1 Full Faith & Credit Clause:

full faith and credit given in each state
Deference to judgments passed in other states.

Service

Federal: FRCP 4(k)(2)

Does have sufficient contacts with the United

States as a whole? Fall back provision that ONLY
applies if there would be NO PJ under any other
provision this is really rare because there must
be NO STATE with jurisdiction.

State: long arm statute (LA)

Is a resident of the
forum state (FS)?

YES

Was PRESENT in
the forum state when
process was served?

YES PJ. Valid tag jurisdiction for

transient presence, regardless
of purpose. Burnham (SPLIT DECISION!)

YES

1.

YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction.

2.
3.

Express: written in forum

selection clause Carnival Cruise, Zapata
Implied: (specific jdx) agent for
service, nonresident motorist Hess
Waived: legal submission by
coming to litigate Ireland Insurance

YES

NO

If is a corporation, are contacts

with FS continuous and
systematic as to render
essentially at home in FS?

Goodyear, Daimler

NOTE: this is high threshold & requires

serious presence in the FS!

Helicopteros: purchasing/selling a lot of

product or frequently sending
employees to conduct business = NO PJ
Perkins: co. prez operating out of OH
sufficient to show general jdx = YES PJ

Does the claim arise

out of/relates to s
contact with the FS?

NO

YES

NO PJ. No in rem or
quasi in rem (QIR)
jurisdiction.

NO

YES
Could get in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction.
Go to MINIMUM CONTACTS analysis.

Shaffer: owning stock insufficient for PJ; Type 2 QIR

= limited. Property must be cause of claim = NO PJ
Savchuk: no QIR by attaching insurance K = NO PJ

NO PJ. No specific or
general jurisdiction.

NO

YES
Does the FSs long
arm statute provide
PJ over ? FRCP 4(k)

Does own
PROPERTY in FS?

Is there an
attachment
statute?

NO
Did
CONSENT to be sued?

on service of process?

PROPERTY JURISDICTION

YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction by

DOMICILE
Individuals
Corporations
Domicile Milliken Incorporation, HQ

NO

Did service comply with FRCP 4? Waiver 4(d)?

State: Did service comply with state rules

unenumerated (full extent of DPC) v. enumerated

TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION Pennoyer (sovereignty)

Federal: FRCP 4 (a-e, h, n)

Reasonably calculated under the
circumstances to give NOTICE to
interested parties Milliken

State NO PJ must be a basis if

non-resident not served in FS, or

NO

YES

Federal only if jdx provided under

other FRCP 4(k) provisions, such as:

nationwide service statute (class action),

bulge rule for FRCP 14/19 joinder

Does it satisfy MINIMUM CONTACTS analysis? Burger King ** SEE MIN CONTACTS CHART!! **
International Shoe: must have sufficient minimum contacts within the FS such that
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

NO

MIN CONTACTS
MODERN TEST

NO PJ. No specific jurisdiction.

has not purposefully availed
herself to the FS.

YES
NO PJ. Even though has
minimum contacts with FS, due
process prevents exercise of PJ.
Asahi: foreign burden too great

YES PJ. Valid specific jurisdiction.

Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz (SC 1985) YES PJ

NO
YES

REASONABLENESS TEST:
Does imposing jurisdiction meet the
notions of fair play and substantial
justice? Consider: Burger King
1. Burden on
2. Interest of
3. Interest of FS in adjudicating

franchisee of BK in MI, stopped making payments

and continued to operate store.BK sue for breach of K in FL, choice of law clause for FL
Brennan: (majority) FL has IPJ. Similar to WWVW (where Brennan dissented), wants choice of law closer to choice of forum
2-part test: Nicastro
1.
MIN CONTACTS: Has D purposefully established minimum contacts in the state?
2.
REASONABLENESS: Are notions of fair play satisfied by establishing jurisdiction there?
Defendants inconvenience, plaintiffs interest, interstate judicial system and the shared interest of the several states
5