Personal Jurisdiction Explained (With Flowchart)

Personal jurisdiction is a court's power over the parties in a lawsuit (as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction, which is the court's power over the type of case). Before a court can enter a judgment against a defendant, it must have personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The foundational case is International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which established the “minimum contacts” test.

A court has general jurisdiction over a defendant who is essentially “at home” in the forum state. For individuals, this means their state of domicile. For corporations, it means their state of incorporation and their principal place of business (Daimler AG v. Bauman). If general jurisdiction exists, the defendant can be sued in that state for any claim, even one unrelated to their activities there.

When general jurisdiction doesn't exist, the plaintiff can still sue in a state where the defendant has minimum contacts related to the claim. The test from International Shoe and its progeny has three parts:

1. The defendant must have purposefully directed activities at the forum state
2. The plaintiff's claim must arise out of or relate to those contacts
3. The exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable (fair play and substantial justice)

When analyzing personal jurisdiction on an exam:

Step 1: Is the defendant “at home” in the forum? (domicile, incorporation, or principal place of business) → If yes: general jurisdiction. Done.

Step 2: Did the defendant purposefully direct activities at the forum? → If no: no jurisdiction.

Step 3: Does the claim arise out of those contacts? → If no: no specific jurisdiction.

Step 4: Is exercising jurisdiction reasonable? Consider: burden on defendant, forum state's interest, plaintiff's interest, efficiency, and interstate policy interests.

Pennoyer v. Neff: The original rule — jurisdiction required physical presence or property in the state.
International Shoe v. Washington: Replaced physical presence with minimum contacts test.
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson: Unilateral activity by plaintiff doesn't create contacts — defendant must purposefully avail.
Burger King v. Rudzewicz: Purposeful availment through a contractual relationship.
Daimler AG v. Bauman: Narrowed general jurisdiction to “at home” for corporations.