Jurisdiction and venue - Personal jurisdiction

Learning Outcomes

This article explains how MBE-tested personal jurisdiction operates in civil procedure, including:

• Differentiating personal jurisdiction from subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and identifying which doctrine to analyze first on an exam.
• Identifying and applying the three types of personal jurisdiction—in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem—to common fact patterns.
• Recognizing statutory bases for in personam jurisdiction, including traditional bases, consent, and long-arm statutes, and spotting when a long-arm statute is narrower than due process.
• Applying the constitutional minimum-contacts framework—purposeful availment, relatedness, and fairness—to determine when specific or general jurisdiction exists.
• Evaluating corporate and individual contacts to decide whether a court may exercise general “at home” jurisdiction or only specific, claim-linked jurisdiction.
• Assessing whether notice and service of process under Rule 4 and comparable state rules satisfy due process and are reasonably calculated to inform defendants.
• Spotting and avoiding exam traps involving waiver or forfeiture of personal jurisdiction objections under Rule 12 and through litigation conduct.
• Explaining how personal jurisdiction works in federal court under Rule 4(k), including the 100‑mile bulge rule, nationwide service statutes, and the federal “long‑arm” provision in Rule 4(k)(2).
• Applying in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction rules after Shaffer v. Heitner, including attachment, notice requirements, and the limited reach of judgments tied to the res.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand jurisdiction and venue doctrine, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Distinguishing personal jurisdiction from subject matter jurisdiction and venue.
• The three types of personal jurisdiction: in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem.
• Statutory bases for in personam jurisdiction: presence, domicile, consent, and long-arm statutes.
• Personal jurisdiction in federal courts, including Rule 4(k), the 100-mile bulge rule, and federal “long-arm” jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2).
• Constitutional limits on personal jurisdiction: minimum contacts, relatedness, and “fair play and substantial justice.”
• General versus specific jurisdiction for individuals and corporations.
• Due process notice requirements and basic service of process rules.
• In rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction after Shaffer v. Heitner.
• Waiver and forfeiture of personal jurisdiction objections, especially under Rule 12(b), (g), and (h).

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which of the following is NOT a traditional basis for personal jurisdiction over an individual?
   1. Physical presence in the forum state when served
   2. Domicile in the forum state
   3. Consent to jurisdiction
   4. The defendant’s citizenship in a foreign country
2. Under the minimum contacts test, which factor is LEAST relevant to whether a state court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant?
   1. Whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum
   2. Whether the claim arises from the defendant’s contacts with the forum
   3. Whether the forum state has an interest in the dispute
   4. Whether the defendant’s lawyer is licensed in the forum state
3. Which constitutional requirement is satisfied if the method of service is reasonably calculated to inform the defendant of the action?
   1. The Full Faith and Credit Clause
   2. The notice requirement of due process
   3. The minimum contacts requirement
   4. The Equal Protection Clause
4. A corporation incorporated and headquartered in State A has sales offices and millions of dollars in annual sales in State B. A consumer, a resident of State C, sues the corporation in State B for an accident that occurred in State C, unrelated to State B. Which is the BEST statement?
   1. State B has general jurisdiction because the corporation does substantial business there
   2. State B has specific jurisdiction because the corporation sells products there
   3. State B lacks general jurisdiction because the corporation is not “at home” there
   4. State B lacks jurisdiction because the plaintiff is not a resident of State B
5. A plaintiff sues a nonresident driver in State X court for an in‑state car accident. State X’s long-arm statute is limited to suits “arising from a tortious act within this state.” The defendant has no other contacts with State X. Which is true?
   1. There is no statutory basis for jurisdiction
   2. The statute is satisfied, and minimum contacts are automatically satisfied
   3. The statute is satisfied, but the court still must analyze minimum contacts
   4. There is general jurisdiction because the accident occurred in State X

Introduction

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s power to make binding decisions over a particular defendant or over property. It is distinct from:

• Subject matter jurisdiction: the court’s authority over the type of case (e.g., diversity, federal question).
• Venue: the proper geographic district within the court system.

For a judgment to be valid and enforceable, the court must have both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and venue must be proper or waived. A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void and can be attacked later, even in another state, when the winning party tries to enforce it. In federal practice, a default judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is “void” for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4), and the defendant can seek to set it aside even long after entry, so long as the motion is made within a reasonable time.

Key Term: Personal Jurisdiction
The court’s authority to render a binding judgment against a particular defendant or with respect to property.

Personal jurisdiction is constrained by both statute and the Constitution:

• A statute (usually state law, even in federal court) must authorize jurisdiction.
• The exercise of jurisdiction must comply with the Due Process Clause (minimum contacts and adequate notice).

On exam questions, always think in this order:

• Step 1: Is there a statutory basis (traditional bases, long-arm, federal rule or statute)?
• Step 2: If yes, is the exercise of jurisdiction constitutional (minimum contacts plus fairness, and proper notice)?

If either step fails, the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

Also keep straight the relationship among the three core concepts:

• Subject matter jurisdiction: Can this court hear this kind of case at all (e.g., diversity, federal question)? Not waivable.
• Personal jurisdiction: Can this court bind this defendant or this piece of property? Waivable if not timely asserted.
• Venue: Which specific court within the system is the proper location for this dispute? Waivable if not timely asserted.

A state or federal court may have subject matter jurisdiction but lack personal jurisdiction (for example, diversity jurisdiction over a car accident that took place in another state with no contacts to the forum). Or the court may have personal jurisdiction but be an improper venue. Each requirement must be satisfied separately.

Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts

Even in federal court, the starting point is usually state law.

• Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A), a federal court generally has the same personal jurisdiction as a court of the state where it sits. So you analyze the state’s long-arm statute and constitutional limits just as you would in state court.
• There are several important federal expansions:

  • Rule 4(k)(1)(B), the 100‑mile bulge rule, gives jurisdiction over certain joined parties (impleaded parties and required joinder parties) served within 100 miles of the issuing court, even if that is outside the forum state. This applies only to parties joined under Rules 14 (impleader) and 19 (required joinder).

  • Rule 4(k)(1)(C) allows jurisdiction when a federal statute authorizes nationwide service of process (e.g., some antitrust, securities, interpleader, and civil rights statutes). When nationwide service is validly authorized, courts usually assess due process by looking to the defendant’s contacts with the United States as a whole, not with any particular state. In those situations, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, not the Fourteenth Amendment, supplies the constitutional limit.

  • Rule 4(k)(2) (sometimes called the federal “long-arm” rule) allows a federal court to exercise personal jurisdiction in certain federal question cases over a defendant who:

    • is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction, and
    • has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole,
      so that exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

    This rule mainly matters for foreign defendants in federal question cases (e.g., federal antitrust or copyright claims) where no single state has enough contacts but national contacts are sufficient.

Key Term: 100-Mile Bulge Rule
A federal rule allowing personal jurisdiction over certain joined parties served within 100 miles of the federal courthouse, even if outside the forum state.

Key points about federal personal jurisdiction for exam purposes:

• The default rule is “borrow the state long-arm”: if a state court in that district would have personal jurisdiction, the federal court does as well.
• The 100‑mile bulge rule is limited:
  • It applies only to parties joined under Rules 14 and 19.
  • The party must be served within 100 miles of the federal courthouse, regardless of state lines.
• When a federal statute authorizes nationwide service, contacts are measured with the nation, not a particular state.
• Rule 4(k)(2) fills a gap primarily for foreign defendants in federal question cases.

Note that personal jurisdiction is almost never contested as to the plaintiff, because the plaintiff consents by filing the case. The focus is on whether the court has power over the defendant or the defendant’s property.

Also remember the distinction from subject matter jurisdiction:

• Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time by anyone, including the court.
• Personal jurisdiction can be waived by the defendant, usually by not objecting in the first Rule 12 response or by litigating on the merits before objecting.

Types of Personal Jurisdiction

There are three main types:

• In Personam Jurisdiction
• In Rem Jurisdiction
• Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

In Personam Jurisdiction

Key Term: In Personam Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the defendant as a person, allowing the court to impose personal liability enforceable against all of the defendant’s assets.

In personam jurisdiction is the core modern form. If a court has valid in personam jurisdiction and issues a money judgment, that judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in other states and can be enforced against the defendant’s property wherever found (subject to local enforcement rules).

In Rem Jurisdiction

Key Term: In Rem Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over property in the forum to determine the rights of all persons regarding that property.

In rem jurisdiction allows the court to adjudicate the rights of all persons in the world with respect to a particular property (the “res”) located in the forum. Typical examples:

• Condemnation and eminent domain actions
• Forfeiture of property used in crime
• Quiet title and title registration proceedings
• Administration of estate property located in the forum

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Key Term: Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over a defendant’s property in the forum to resolve a dispute between particular parties; the judgment is limited to that property and does not impose personal liability beyond it.

Quasi in rem jurisdiction uses property in the forum as a jurisdictional hook for disputes between specific parties. The court’s judgment affects only those parties and is limited in practical effect to the value of the property attached.

Modern doctrine (after Shaffer v. Heitner) subjects all exercises of jurisdiction—whether in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem—to the same constitutional minimum contacts analysis. The presence of property alone is no longer enough if there are no sufficient contacts between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.

This means that in rem and quasi in rem actions still require:

• Statutory authorization; and
• Minimum contacts between the defendant, the forum, and the property/dispute.

For in rem, the strong nexus between the property and the dispute usually supplies the necessary contacts. For quasi in rem type II (using unrelated property simply as a hook), minimum contacts will often be missing.

Statutory Bases for Personal Jurisdiction

A court must have statutory authority to exercise personal jurisdiction. The main statutory bases are:

• Traditional bases (presence, domicile, consent)
• Long-arm statutes
• Federal rules and statutes expanding reach (e.g., 100-mile bulge, nationwide service, Rule 4(k)(2))

On any MBE problem, you should first ask: “What is the supposed statutory basis?” Only after that do you move to the constitutional “minimum contacts” step.

Traditional Bases

Traditional in personam jurisdiction is often described as based on “presence, domicile, or consent.”

Historically, if one of these was satisfied, courts rarely analyzed minimum contacts separately. After International Shoe, these traditional bases are generally understood as almost always satisfying modern due process, but it is still useful to analyze constitutionality when the facts are unusual or coercive.

Physical Presence (“Tag” Jurisdiction)

Serving the defendant with process while physically present in the forum state provides a traditional basis for jurisdiction, even if the defendant is merely passing through and the claim is unrelated to the visit.

This “transient” or “tag” jurisdiction is constitutional under Burnham v. Superior Court.

Key Term: Tag Jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction based on personal service of process on an individual defendant while the defendant is physically present in the forum state.

Important points and limits:

• Tag jurisdiction applies to individuals, not corporations. You cannot “tag” a corporation simply by serving an officer while she happens to be in the state; you must satisfy some other statutory basis for jurisdiction over the corporation.
• The defendant’s purpose for being in the state does not normally matter (vacation, business, passing through).
• The claim need not arise from the in-state presence. Tag jurisdiction supports what is effectively general jurisdiction for that case.

However, there are important limits created by state law and due process:

• Service obtained by fraud or force is invalid. If the plaintiff tricks or coerces the defendant into entering the state solely to serve them, most courts will not allow jurisdiction.

  • Example: Plaintiff invites an out-of-state defendant to the forum state under false pretenses (e.g., promising a business meeting or family event) solely to have process served. Many states treat this as improper, and the service will not support jurisdiction.

• Many states grant immunity from personal jurisdiction to non-residents who are in the state solely to participate in judicial proceedings (e.g., attending as a witness or party in another case) or traveling through the state on their way to such proceedings. This encourages people to participate in litigation without fear of being sued on other matters.

These state-law exceptions are statutory or common-law limits; the Constitution would allow broader use of tag jurisdiction, but states often choose to restrict it.

Domicile

A person is always subject to jurisdiction in their state of domicile, regardless of where they are served, and regardless of whether they are physically present there at the time of suit.

Key Term: Domicile
The state where a person is physically present and intends to remain indefinitely; each person has only one domicile at a time.

Key points for domicile:

• Domicile requires both:

  • Physical presence in the state; and
  • Intent to remain indefinitely (or at least no definite plan to leave).

• Once established, domicile continues until a new one is acquired (by establishing presence and intent elsewhere).

• For individuals, general jurisdiction (being “at home”) is based on domicile. A state always has general in personam jurisdiction over its domiciliaries.

• A U.S. citizen living abroad normally retains the domicile of the last U.S. state where they were domiciled, unless they acquire a new U.S. domicile. For diversity subject matter jurisdiction, a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad is not a citizen of any state, which can destroy diversity; but for personal jurisdiction, a state where the person remains domiciled still has power over them.

On the MBE, if the facts clearly show that the defendant is domiciled in the forum state (even if currently living temporarily elsewhere), you can nearly always conclude there is general in personam jurisdiction.

Consent

A defendant can consent to jurisdiction in several ways, and consent is a powerful basis for jurisdiction.

Key Term: Forum Selection Clause
A contractual provision in which parties agree in advance to litigate disputes in a specified forum, thereby consenting to personal jurisdiction there.

Forms of consent:

• Express consent:

  • By contract, such as a forum selection clause designating a particular court. Clauses are generally enforceable unless unreasonable or fundamentally unfair (e.g., obtained by fraud or effectively depriving a party of any day in court). The Supreme Court treats valid forum selection clauses as ordinarily controlling in the absence of strong countervailing public policy.
  • By appointing an agent for service of process (often required by statute for nonresident motorists or corporations doing business in the state). Many states require out-of-state corporations to appoint in-state agents; service on the agent is treated as consent to jurisdiction for disputes within statutory scope.
  • By expressly consenting in court (e.g., admitting that the court has personal jurisdiction or signing a stipulation).

• Implied consent:

  • By engaging in certain activities that statutes treat as consent (e.g., driving on state roads under a nonresident motorist statute; registering to do business in a state where the statute explicitly provides that registration amounts to consent to suit). On an MBE question, if the statute clearly says “by registering to do business here, a foreign corporation consents to jurisdiction for any suit arising in the state,” you may treat registration as consent for those suits.
  • By making a general appearance in court and litigating the merits without properly preserving a personal jurisdiction objection.
  • By failing to raise lack of personal jurisdiction in the first Rule 12 response (answer or pre-answer motion) in federal court.

Key Term: General Appearance
A party’s participation in litigation on the merits (rather than solely to contest jurisdiction), which typically waives any objection to personal jurisdiction.

On the MBE, waiver by litigation conduct is heavily tested:

• Under the federal rules, a defendant must raise lack of personal jurisdiction in their first Rule 12 motion or, if none, in their answer. Waiting and raising it later (e.g., just before trial) waives the defense, even if personal jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.
• A defendant may file a single pre-answer motion containing multiple Rule 12(b) defenses (including lack of personal jurisdiction) without waiving anything; but if they file a first motion and omit lack of personal jurisdiction, that defense is lost.
• A defendant can still challenge subject matter jurisdiction at any time; but personal jurisdiction objections are forfeited if not timely.

Registration Statutes and Consent

Some questions present a foreign corporation that has registered to do business in the forum and appointed a local agent for service, and then ask whether the forum has general jurisdiction over the corporation. The safe approach for the MBE:

• If the statute explicitly provides that registration equals consent to jurisdiction for suits arising from in-state business, treat that as valid consent for those related suits (specific jurisdiction).
• Do not assume registration alone creates general “all-purpose” jurisdiction over any claim, especially after Supreme Court cases limiting general jurisdiction. Unless the facts explicitly say the corporation consented to “all suits,” focus on specific jurisdiction for claims arising from its in-state business.

Key Term: Long-Arm Statute
A state law authorizing jurisdiction over non-residents based on specified contacts or activities with the state, such as doing business or committing a tort there.

Worked Example 1.1

A plaintiff was severely injured when her car collided with the defendant's truck on a highway in State A. The plaintiff was a citizen of State B, and the defendant was a citizen of State A. The defendant had no contacts with State B. The plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in State B, asserting a state-law negligence claim. The defendant filed an answer denying liability. Three months later, after discovery ended, the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Answer:
The court should deny the motion because the defendant has waived the objection. By failing to raise lack of personal jurisdiction in his first Rule 12 response (here, his answer) and litigating the case through discovery, the defendant impliedly consented to the court’s jurisdiction. Prejudice to the plaintiff or the timing of the motion are not the legal test; waiver occurs when the defense is omitted from the first Rule 12 response.

Long-Arm Statutes

Most states have long-arm statutes allowing jurisdiction over non-residents based on specified acts or contacts with the state. Long-arm statutes are the primary basis for obtaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

Typical long-arm provisions include jurisdiction over defendants who:

• Transact business in the state (e.g., negotiating, executing, or performing a contract there)
• Contract to supply goods or services in the state
• Commit a tort in the state
• Cause tortious injury in the state by an act outside the state, if the defendant regularly does business, solicits business, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or services rendered in the state
• Own, use, or possess property in the state
• Maintain a marital domicile or child support obligations in the state, in domestic relations cases

Some long-arm statutes are:

• “Unlimited” (or “to the full extent of due process”): they authorize jurisdiction whenever the Constitution permits. In such states, the statutory and constitutional analyses effectively merge. If minimum contacts and fairness are satisfied, the statute is satisfied.
• “Limited” (enumerated): they list specific categories of acts. Even if exercising jurisdiction would be constitutional, the court cannot go beyond the statute’s list.

On the MBE, when a fact pattern describes a specific long-arm statute, you must:

• Check whether the defendant’s conduct fits within the statute.
• Only if the statute applies, analyze minimum contacts and fairness.

If the statute is narrower than the Constitution, the statute controls. For instance, if a contract was negotiated entirely outside the state but will foreseeably have effects in the state, that might satisfy due process; but if the long-arm statute covers only contracts “made” in the state, there is no statutory basis and the court cannot exercise jurisdiction.

In federal court, Rule 4(k)(1)(A) usually restricts personal jurisdiction to what the state long-arm statute allows, unless a federal statute provides a broader reach or Rule 4(k)(2) applies for certain federal question cases.

Worked Example 1.2

A resident of State X sues a company incorporated and headquartered in State Y for breach of contract in State X. The company sent sales representatives to State X, negotiated the contract there, and shipped goods to State X. State X’s long-arm statute covers any person “transacting business” in the state. Does State X have statutory authority for personal jurisdiction?

Answer:
Yes. By sending representatives, negotiating the contract, and shipping goods into State X, the company has “transacted business” in the state within the meaning of the long-arm statute. The statutory requirement is satisfied; the court must still examine constitutional due process (minimum contacts and fairness), but those are likely satisfied as well because the claim arises from those in-state business activities.

Constitutional Limitations: Due Process

Even if a statute authorizes jurisdiction, the exercise must satisfy due process. This requires:

• Sufficient minimum contacts between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation; and
• Proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Key Term: Due Process (Fair Play and Substantial Justice)
The constitutional requirement that exercising personal jurisdiction must be consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, considering the defendant’s contacts and the fairness of requiring the defendant to defend in the forum.

Minimum Contacts Test

The core modern test, from International Shoe v. Washington, asks whether the defendant has “minimum contacts” with the forum state such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Key Term: Minimum Contacts
Sufficient connections between the defendant and the forum state, arising from the defendant’s own purposeful activities, that justify the forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction.

The analysis is usually broken into three components:

• Contact: purposeful availment and foreseeability
• Relatedness: specific versus general jurisdiction
• Fairness: is it reasonable to require the defendant to litigate there?

Each component is discussed below.

1. Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability

The defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum state’s laws and benefits. Contacts must result from the defendant’s own deliberate actions, not merely the unilateral acts of others (such as customers moving there on their own).

Key Term: Purposeful Availment
The defendant’s deliberate engagement with the forum state—such as targeting customers there or conducting activities there—so that it is fair to require the defendant to defend a suit in that state.

Key points:

• A defendant purposefully avails itself by, for example:

  • Soliciting or doing business in the state (advertising, sales representatives, regular shipments)
  • Entering contracts with substantial connection to the state (negotiations, performance, or choice-of-law in the forum)
  • Delivering products into the state under circumstances indicating intent to serve that market
  • Committing a tort in the state
  • Expressly aiming intentional tortious conduct at the state, knowing the harm will be felt there (the “effects test” for intentional torts)

• Foreseeability in this context means that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum because of its conduct. It is not enough that the defendant might foresee that its product or conduct could end up causing harm there through the unilateral actions of others.

Examples of purposeful availment:

• A franchisee in State A enters a 20‑year franchise agreement with a franchisor in State B, sends monthly royalties to State B, and follows detailed operational instructions from State B. The franchisor sues in State B: the franchisee has purposefully availed itself of State B.
• A nonresident driver causes an accident while driving through the forum state. By driving on the state’s roads, the driver has purposefully availed himself for claims arising from that conduct.

By contrast, no purposeful availment:

• A financial company in State A that has customers only in States A and B is sued in State C because one customer moved there and was harmed. The company did nothing directed at State C; it did not purposefully avail itself of that market.

Stream of Commerce

A recurring problem involves products placed into the stream of commerce. Placing a product into the stream of commerce with the awareness it might reach the forum is not, by itself, clearly sufficient. The Supreme Court has been divided, but for exam purposes:

Key Term: Stream of Commerce
The distribution system by which a product moves from manufacturer through distributors to consumers; jurisdiction concerns arise when a product injures someone in a state where the manufacturer has no direct presence.

MBE-safe approach:

• Stream of commerce plus additional conduct targeting the forum is generally enough, such as:

  • Designing the product to comply with the forum’s regulations
  • Advertising in the forum
  • Establishing channels for advice or customer service for forum customers
  • Having a distributor contract that specifically serves the forum

• Mere awareness that products might be resold into the forum, without more, is usually not enough for personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer.

So, for exam purposes, look for evidence that the defendant intentionally sought to serve the forum’s market, not just that its goods happened to arrive there.

Internet Contacts

Courts distinguish between:

• Passive websites (only post information): generally insufficient to create minimum contacts.
• Interactive, targeted websites (conducting business with residents, taking orders, targeting ads): may establish minimum contacts, especially when the claim arises from the online activity.

Relevant factors include:

• Whether the website allows customers in the forum to purchase products or services directly.
• Whether the site or online ads are specifically directed at the forum (e.g., listing prices in local currency, advertising proximity to the forum, or offering special deals to forum residents).
• The volume of sales or interactions with forum residents.

A hotel in State A that runs a website allowing State B residents to make reservations, advertises its proximity to State B, and provides driving directions from State B is purposefully targeting State B. If a State B resident sues in State B over an online booking dispute, minimum contacts are likely satisfied.

By contrast, if a website merely posts information accessible worldwide, with no targeting and no sales, that alone usually does not create personal jurisdiction anywhere except the operator’s home forum.

Intentional Torts and the “Effects” Test

For intentional torts (libel, intentional interference, etc.), personal jurisdiction can be based on the “effects” of the defendant’s intentional conduct in the forum:

• If the defendant intentionally targets a victim in the forum state, knowing that the brunt of the injury will be felt there, and the claims arise from that conduct, the forum may exercise specific jurisdiction, even if the defendant has no other contacts there.

This “effects test” often appears in defamation, privacy, and economic tort problems on the MBE.

2. Relatedness: Specific vs. General Jurisdiction

Once contacts exist, ask how the claim relates to those contacts.

Key Term: Specific Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction based on forum contacts that give rise to or are closely related to the cause of action.

Key Term: General Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction allowing a court to hear any claim against a defendant, based on the defendant being “at home” in the forum state.

• Specific Jurisdiction:

  • Exists when the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
  • Requires fewer or more limited contacts because the forum’s authority is tied to those specific contacts.

  Common specific jurisdiction patterns:

  • A contract negotiated or performed in the forum, where the suit is about breach of that contract.
  • A product sold or distributed into the forum that causes injury there.
  • A tort committed in the forum.

  There must be a real connection between the forum contacts and the claim; purely unrelated claims cannot use specific jurisdiction.

• General Jurisdiction:

  • Exists when the defendant’s contacts are so continuous and systematic that the defendant is “essentially at home” in the forum.
  • For individuals: generally only the state of domicile (though tag jurisdiction—service while present—creates, for that case, a form of general jurisdiction).
  • For corporations: typically:
    • The state of incorporation; and
    • The state of principal place of business (the “nerve center,” often the headquarters).
  • Only in exceptional cases will another state qualify (where operations in the state are so substantial as to make it comparable to a home).

Recent Supreme Court decisions (Goodyear, Daimler, BNSF) have sharply limited general jurisdiction over corporations:

• “Doing business” in a state, even regularly and substantially, is not enough by itself for general jurisdiction.
• Regular sales or even maintaining offices in multiple states usually do not make a corporation “at home” outside its state of incorporation and principal place of business.
• The examiners often use pre-Daimler language like “continuous and systematic business” to tempt you. Unless the state is the corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business (or the fact pattern labels the case “exceptional”), the correct answer is usually that there is no general jurisdiction.

For exam purposes:

• If a question asks whether there is general jurisdiction over a corporation in a state where it merely has sales or an office, the safe answer is usually no, unless it is the state of incorporation or principal place of business.

Note: Tag jurisdiction over an individual (service while physically present in the state) still supports in personam jurisdiction even if the claim is unrelated to the in-state presence. For corporations, there is no equivalent “tag” rule.

Worked Example 1.3

A tire manufacturer incorporated and headquartered in State A sells tires nationwide. A tire sold in State B causes an accident in State B injuring a resident. The injured party sues the manufacturer in State B. The manufacturer has no offices or agents in State B, but its tires are sold there through distributors. Does State B have specific jurisdiction? Does it have general jurisdiction?

Answer:
State B likely has specific jurisdiction. The manufacturer placed its tires into the stream of commerce and intentionally served the State B market by selling through distributors there. The claim arises from the product’s use in State B. However, State B does not have general jurisdiction; the manufacturer is not “at home” there because it is incorporated and headquartered in State A, and there are no exceptional circumstances making State B its home.

Worked Example 1.4

A corporation is incorporated in State X and has its principal place of business in State Y. It operates retail stores in 40 states, including State Z, where it generates 15% of its total revenue and has thousands of employees. A customer from State W slips and falls in a store in State W and sues the corporation in State Z, choosing that forum because the customer’s lawyer lives there. The corporation moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Answer:
State Z lacks general jurisdiction. Even though the corporation does substantial and continuous business there, it is not “at home” in State Z; its state of incorporation (X) and principal place of business (Y) are the standard forums for general jurisdiction. There is also no specific jurisdiction because the claim (a fall in State W) does not arise from or relate to the corporation’s contacts with State Z. The motion to dismiss should be granted.

3. Fairness

Even with minimum contacts, jurisdiction must be fair—consistent with “fair play and substantial justice.”

Courts consider several factors:

• The burden on the defendant (e.g., distance, cost, access to witnesses and evidence)
• The forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute (e.g., protecting its residents, regulating in-state conduct)
• The plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief
• The judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies
• The shared interests of the several states in furthering substantive social policies (e.g., family stability, safety regulation)

If contacts are strong, fairness arguments rarely defeat jurisdiction. The fairness prong mainly matters when the defendant’s contacts are borderline.

Examples:

• A small local business in State A that makes a single mail order sale to a consumer in a far-away State B, where shipping was arranged entirely by the buyer, may argue that being sued in State B is grossly burdensome and unfair.
• By contrast, a large national company that purposely sells products in all 50 states will rarely succeed in claiming that any particular state is an unfair forum for claims arising out of its products there.

On exam questions, if you conclude that purposeful availment exists and the claim is closely related to the contacts, fairness will almost always be satisfied, especially where the plaintiff and forum are the same state and the harm occurred there.

Worked Example 1.5

During the defendant's cross-country road trip, he was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff in the state where the plaintiff lived. Following the accident, the plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court located in the state where the accident occurred. Prior to the accident, the defendant had never been to the forum state. The defendant flew home from the forum state directly following the accident and has not been back to the forum state since that time. Before filing a responsive pleading, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court denied the defendant's motion.

Answer:
The court properly exercised specific jurisdiction. By driving in the forum state and allegedly committing a tort there, the defendant purposefully availed himself of the forum’s roads, and the claim arises from that in-state conduct. The forum state has a strong interest in adjudicating accidents on its roads, and requiring the defendant to defend there is fair.

Notice Requirement

Due process also requires that the defendant receive notice of the action that is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Actual notice is not required, but the chosen method must be reasonably likely to inform.

Key Term: Notice
The constitutional requirement that a defendant be informed of a lawsuit in a manner reasonably calculated to provide actual awareness and an opportunity to be heard.

Key points:

• The constitutionally required standard comes from Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
• Due process focuses on the reasonableness of the method selected, not the success of the attempt.
• If the plaintiff learns that a chosen method failed (e.g., mail returned “unclaimed”), and it is practical to try something else, due process often requires further reasonable efforts.

Service of Process Basics (Federal Rules)

Key Term: Service of Process
The formal delivery of the summons and complaint to a defendant by an authorized person, using methods approved by procedural rules.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

• The plaintiff must serve a summons and complaint (process) within the time specified by the rules (90 days after filing in federal court).
• Service must be made by a nonparty who is at least 18 years old.
• For individual defendants, valid methods include:
  • Personal delivery to the defendant
  • Leaving copies at the defendant’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there
  • Delivering to an authorized agent (either appointed by the defendant or authorized by law, such as a statutory agent)
  • Using any method allowed by the law of the state where the federal court sits or where service is made (Rule 4(e)(1))

For corporations, partnerships, or associations, service can be made by:

• Delivering process to an officer, managing or general agent, or any agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service, or
• Following state law methods where the district court is located or where service is made (Rule 4(h)).

The constitutional question is whether the method used is reasonably calculated to give notice. The Federal Rules generally satisfy that standard when properly followed.

Additional service points that often appear on the MBE:

• Service may be made anywhere in the state where the federal court sits, and sometimes beyond, if a long-arm statute or Rule 4(k) authorizes it.
• Minors and incompetents are served according to the law of the state where service is made.
• If service is defective, the court should usually allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cure the defect, especially if the statute of limitations has not run.

Known vs. Unknown Addresses

• If the defendant’s name and address are known or reasonably ascertainable, due process usually requires at least mail or personal service. Mere publication in a newspaper is not enough.
• Notice by publication alone is usually sufficient only where parties are unknown, unlocatable, or have interests that are more diffuse and hard to identify (e.g., many unknown beneficiaries in a trust, or unknown owners of property in forfeiture proceedings).

Multiple parties or unknown parties:

• When there are many interested parties, some known and some unknown, it is acceptable to give individual mailed or personal notice to those whose addresses can reasonably be discovered and notice by publication to the others.

Mail returned unclaimed:

• If the plaintiff learns that mailed notice was not received, they must take additional practical steps (if feasible) to notify the defendant, such as re-sending by regular mail, posting notice on the property, or using another reasonable method. Doing nothing further, when additional steps are easy, violates due process (as in Jones v. Flowers).

Worked Example 1.6

A plaintiff sues a defendant who lives in another state. The plaintiff knows the defendant’s home address but serves notice only by publication in a local newspaper. The defendant does not appear and a default judgment is entered. Is this notice constitutionally sufficient?

Answer:
No. When the plaintiff knows (or can easily discover) the defendant’s address, due process requires a method of notice, such as mail or personal service, that is more likely to inform the defendant than publication alone. Service solely by publication in these circumstances is not reasonably calculated to provide notice.

Worked Example 1.7

A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction for injuries from a car accident. The next day, the plaintiff’s 20-year-old spouse personally served the summons and complaint on the defendant. The spouse failed to file proof of service with the court. Twenty days later, the defendant moves to dismiss for insufficient service of process, arguing that service is invalid.

Answer:
The motion should be denied. Service by a nonparty adult is authorized, and the plaintiff’s 20-year-old spouse (not a party) qualifies. The failure to file proof of service is a procedural omission that does not affect the validity of service as between the parties. Due process is satisfied because the defendant actually received notice through a proper method.

Waiver of Service

• A plaintiff may request that the defendant waive formal service by mailing a notice and request form.
• If the defendant signs and returns the waiver, they get additional time to respond (typically 60 days from the request, 90 days if outside the United States).
• If the defendant without good cause refuses to waive service, the court may impose on the defendant the costs of formal service.
• Waiving service does not waive any defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue. The waiver only replaces formal service with an acknowledgment of receipt.

On the MBE, be careful not to equate “waiver of service” with “waiver of personal jurisdiction.”

In Rem and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

While in personam jurisdiction is the primary focus for MBE questions, in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction also appear and must now satisfy minimum contacts.

In Rem Jurisdiction​

As noted, in rem jurisdiction allows a court to adjudicate the rights of all persons with respect to property located in the forum state (e.g., condemnation proceedings, forfeiture of property, title registration, distribution of in-state estate assets).

Key requirements:

• There must be a statutory basis (state law authorizing in rem actions for the type of property/right at issue).
• The property (the “res”) must be physically or legally within the forum’s borders. A court has no in rem power over property, such as land, located wholly out of state.
• The basis for jurisdiction is the property’s presence and the state’s strong interest in determining rights in that property. For example, a state has a strong interest in regulating land within its borders or distributing assets of estates located there.
• The property must not have been brought into the state by fraud or force solely to create jurisdiction.
• Notice must meet due process standards; persons with known or reasonably ascertainable addresses must receive mail or personal notice, not mere publication.

Common in rem scenarios tested:

• Eminent domain (condemnation of land)
• Forfeiture of property used in crime (e.g., vehicles used to transport narcotics)
• Actions to quiet title
• Actions to distribute estate assets located in the state

Sometimes the “property” is intangible, such as a marital status. For example, a state can grant a divorce to a domiciled spouse even if the other spouse is out of state; the marital status is treated as a res located in the state of domicile. That judgment is binding as to the marital status (i.e., the parties are divorced) but may not bind the absent spouse as to property division or support unless there is personal jurisdiction.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction​

Quasi in rem jurisdiction uses property in the forum to resolve disputes involving specific parties. The judgment is limited to the property’s value and does not constitute a general personal judgment enforceable against all of the defendant’s assets.

Two types are commonly distinguished:

• Type I: The dispute is about the parties’ rights in the property itself (e.g., competing claims to a bank account or co-owned real estate). Minimum contacts are usually satisfied because the property itself is central to the litigation and is in the forum.
• Type II: The substantive claim is unrelated to the property; the plaintiff attaches the defendant’s property in the state solely to gain jurisdiction. After Shaffer v. Heitner, this type requires the defendant to have minimum contacts with the forum beyond mere ownership of the property. If minimum contacts are present, in personam jurisdiction is usually also available, making quasi in rem type II rare and constitutionally limited.

Procedurally, to invoke quasi in rem jurisdiction:

• The plaintiff must attach or garnish the property at the start of the case, bringing it under the court’s control (e.g., by recording a lien or freezing an account).
• Notice must again be reasonably calculated to inform the defendant; if the defendant’s whereabouts are known, mail or personal service is required, not just publication.

Worked Example 1.8

A brother, a resident of State A, and a sister, a resident of State B, co-own antique furniture located in State B. The sister sues in State B court to determine who has rightful possession of the furniture. The brother has no other contacts with State B. Can State B exercise personal jurisdiction?

Answer:
Yes. This is quasi in rem type I. The dispute concerns rights in property located in State B. The presence of the property and the close connection between the property and the dispute provide sufficient minimum contacts for State B to exercise jurisdiction over the brother for purposes of determining ownership, even though the brother has no other contacts with the state.

In quasi in rem type II cases, exam questions often present a plaintiff attempting to attach property that is unrelated to the dispute (e.g., attaching a boat docked in Maine to sue on a contract made and to be performed in Ohio). After Shaffer, attachment of property alone is not enough; you must still find minimum contacts related to the forum. Without those, the court lacks jurisdiction.

Exam Warning: Common Traps and Procedural Nuances

Several recurring traps appear in MBE questions on personal jurisdiction.

Confusing Personal Jurisdiction with Subject Matter Jurisdiction

• Subject matter jurisdiction (e.g., diversity, federal question) cannot be waived and may be raised at any time, even on appeal, by any party or by the court.
• Personal jurisdiction can be waived by the defendant, especially by failing to raise it in the first Rule 12 response (pre-answer motion or answer) or by litigating on the merits.
• If an answer choice says that a personal jurisdiction objection “was untimely and therefore waived,” it is often correct. If it says the same thing about subject matter jurisdiction, it is almost certainly wrong.

Confusing Personal Jurisdiction with Venue

• Venue concerns which federal district is proper, not whether the court has power over the defendant.
• Venue and personal jurisdiction objections are separate and can be waived independently. A defendant can waive venue but still challenge personal jurisdiction, or vice versa, as long as the challenge is raised in the first Rule 12 response.
• A court may transfer a case to a district with proper venue and personal jurisdiction, but it cannot cure a lack of subject matter jurisdiction by transfer.

Ignoring the Statutory Step

• On the MBE, if a fact pattern mentions a specific long-arm statute, you must first ask whether the statute covers the defendant’s conduct before analyzing minimum contacts.
• If the long-arm statute is limited (enumerated grounds) and the conduct does not fit any category, there is no statutory basis, and the court lacks jurisdiction even if minimum contacts would otherwise exist.
• In states with “to the full extent of due process” statutes, the statutory and constitutional analyses merge, but you should still explicitly address both.

Waiver Through Litigation Conduct

• Filing a permissive counterclaim or taking substantive steps in the case (e.g., participating in discovery, moving for summary judgment) without preserving a personal jurisdiction objection can be treated as consent to jurisdiction.
• Under the Federal Rules, all Rule 12(b)(2)–(5) defenses (personal jurisdiction, venue, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service) are waived if omitted from the first Rule 12 motion.
• However, a defendant may first file a Rule 12 motion limited to lack of subject matter jurisdiction without waiving personal jurisdiction; but once a motion raising any of 12(b)(2)–(5) defenses is filed, all such defenses must be included or are waived.

Collateral Attack Versus Direct Attack

A defendant who believes the forum lacks personal jurisdiction has two options:

• Direct attack:

  • Appear in the case and move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. If the court denies the motion, the defendant must raise the issue on appeal after final judgment.
  • If the defendant fully litigates the case and loses, they cannot later collaterally attack personal jurisdiction in another state; the issue is precluded.

• Collateral attack:

  • Refuse to appear, suffer a default judgment, and later contest enforcement in another state by arguing that the rendering court lacked personal jurisdiction.
  • This is risky—if the enforcing court finds that jurisdiction was proper, the default judgment stands, and the defendant has lost any chance to contest the merits.

Exam questions sometimes involve a defendant who took no part in the original suit and later challenges enforcement; the key issue is whether the original court had personal jurisdiction.

Federal “Long-Arm” Under Rule 4(k)(2)

In federal question cases against foreign defendants with national contacts but no particular state in which they are subject to general jurisdiction, Rule 4(k)(2) may provide a basis for personal jurisdiction. Look for:

• A federal claim (arising under federal law);
• No state where the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction;
• The defendant having substantial contacts with the United States as a whole.

If those conditions are satisfied, a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, even though no single state would have jurisdiction under its own long-arm statute.

Personal Jurisdiction and Removal

Removal questions sometimes embed hidden personal jurisdiction issues:

• A defendant who removes a case to federal court does not thereby waive a personal jurisdiction objection. The defense must still be asserted in the first Rule 12 response in federal court.
• A federal court to which a case has been removed applies the personal jurisdiction law (including the long-arm statute) of the state in which it sits, unless a federal statute authorizes broader reach.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Personal jurisdiction is the court’s power over particular parties or property, distinct from subject matter jurisdiction and venue.
• In federal court, personal jurisdiction usually mirrors that of the state where the court sits, subject to Rule 4(k) (including the 100-mile bulge rule, nationwide service statutes, and the federal “long-arm” rule in Rule 4(k)(2)).
• Traditional bases for in personam jurisdiction over individuals include physical presence and service in the forum (tag jurisdiction), domicile, and consent.
• Consent can be express (e.g., forum selection clause, appointment of agent, in-court admission) or implied (e.g., failure to timely object, use of forum roads under a nonresident motorist statute, or general appearance).
• Long-arm statutes may be limited (enumerated bases) or “to the full extent of due process.” Both the statute and the Constitution must authorize jurisdiction.
• The constitutional minimum contacts analysis examines:
  • Purposeful availment and foreseeability,
  • Relatedness of the contact to the claim (specific vs. general jurisdiction), and
  • Fairness (burden on defendant, forum and plaintiff interests, system efficiency, and shared state policies).
• General jurisdiction requires the defendant to be “at home” in the forum (for individuals, domicile; for corporations, usually their state of incorporation and principal place of business), with other states rarely qualifying except in exceptional cases.
• Specific jurisdiction exists when the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum.
• Stream-of-commerce and internet contacts require evidence that the defendant targeted the forum, not just that a product or information happened to arrive there.
• Intentional torts may support jurisdiction under an “effects” test when the defendant aims conduct at the forum knowing the harm will be felt there.
• Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform the defendant; when addresses are known, mail or personal service is generally required, and mere publication is insufficient.
• Service of process in federal court must comply with Rule 4 and due process; failure to file proof of service does not invalidate otherwise proper service.
• In rem jurisdiction adjudicates rights of all persons in property located in the forum; quasi in rem jurisdiction adjudicates rights between specific parties and, after Shaffer, also requires minimum contacts.
• Quasi in rem type II (using unrelated property to secure jurisdiction) is rare and requires minimum contacts beyond mere ownership of property in the forum.
• Personal jurisdiction can be waived and must be objected to in the first Rule 12 response; subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.
• Collateral attacks on judgments for lack of personal jurisdiction are possible if the defendant did not appear in the original action, but are risky.
• On the MBE, always analyze (1) statutory authority (long-arm, traditional bases, Rule 4) and (2) constitutional limits (minimum contacts and notice), and watch for waiver traps in the defendant’s litigation conduct.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Personal Jurisdiction
• In Personam Jurisdiction
• In Rem Jurisdiction
• Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
• Long-Arm Statute
• Minimum Contacts
• Specific Jurisdiction
• General Jurisdiction
• Domicile
• Purposeful Availment
• Stream of Commerce
• Tag Jurisdiction
• Forum Selection Clause
• Service of Process
• 100-Mile Bulge Rule
• Due Process (Fair Play and Substantial Justice)
• Notice
• General Appearance