Personal Jurisdiction - Modern Constitutional Doctrine: International Shoe Doctrine

Modern Constitutional Doctrine: International Shoe Doctrine

In the modern era, the reach of personal jurisdiction has been expanded by judicial re-interpretation and legislative enactments. Under the new and current doctrine, a state court may only exert personal jurisdiction over an individual or entity with "sufficient minimal contacts" with the forum state such that the particular suit "does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and justice.'" The "minimum contacts" must be purposefully directed towards the state by the defendant. This jurisdiction was initially limited to the particulars of the International Shoe Co. v. Washington holding, that is to jurisdictional inquiries regarding companies, but was soon extended to apply to all questions of personal jurisdiction. When an individual, or entity, has no "minimum contacts" with a forum State, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits that State from acting against that individual, or entity. The lack of "minimum contacts" with the owner of property also constitutionally prohibits action against that property (in rem jurisdiction) even when the property is located within the forum state.

What constitutes sufficient "minimum contacts" has been delineated in numerous cases which followed the International Shoe decision. For example, in Hanson v. Denckla, the Court proclaimed the "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the nature and quality of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege or conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws."

The additional requirement of "'purposeful availment' ensures that a defendant will not be hauled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random, 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' contacts, or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person Jurisdiction may, however, be exercised, under some circumstances, even though the defendant never physically entered the forum State.

In another recent case of Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown Justice Ginsburg held that for the exercise of general jurisdiction in personam, the defendant must be 'essentially at home'. This applies when the defendant has contacts with the forum state, but the claim that arises is not related to those contacts. For example, if Harrods (UK) sets up an office in California, to export and sell goods there and because of that someone gets injured, it would be amenable to suit in California for that injury. But, on the other hand if someone is injured in Harrods, London and for some reason finds that California law is more favorable decides to sue in California, the suit would not be maintainable since the contacts that Harrods have is not continuous and systematic, and they are not 'essentially at home' in California.

Read more about this topic:  Personal Jurisdiction

Famous quotes containing the words modern constitutional, modern and/or doctrine:

    The United States is the only great nation whose government is operated without a budget. The fact is to be the more striking when it is considered that budgets and budget procedures are the outgrowth of democratic doctrines and have an important part in developing the modern constitutional rights.... The constitutional purpose of a budget is to make government responsive to public opinion and responsible for its acts.
    William Howard Taft (1857–1930)

    The modern queer was invented by Tennessee Williams. Brando in blue jeans, sneakers, white T-shirt and leather jacket. When you saw that, you knew they were available.
    Derek Jarman (b. 1942)

    She, too, would now swim down the river of matrimony with a beautiful name, and a handle to it, as the owner of a fine family property. Women’s rights was an excellent doctrine to preach, but for practice could not stand the strain of such temptation.
    Anthony Trollope (1815–1882)