## Facts

- Oliver “Buck” Revell, a Texas resident and former FBI official, sued Hart G. W. Lidov and Columbia University entities for defamation.
- Lidov authored an article about the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, asserting a conspiracy and criticizing Revell as complicit in wrongdoing.
- The article alleged Revell knew of an imminent attack and arranged for his son to avoid the flight.
- Lidov posted the article on an internet bulletin board hosted by Columbia University’s journalism school; members of the public could access the post online.
- Lidov resided in Massachusetts, had not done business in Texas, had not meaningfully traveled there, and was apparently unaware Revell lived in Texas.
- The article did not reference Texas and did not discuss Texas events or Texas-based conduct.
- Revell alleged reputational and emotional harm in Texas and sought substantial damages.
- The federal district court in Texas dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Lidov and Columbia; Revell appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Lidov based on an allegedly defamatory article posted online but not directed at Texas.
2. Whether Texas courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Columbia based on hosting an online bulletin board where the allegedly defamatory article appeared.
3. Whether Columbia’s broader contacts with Texas supported general personal jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Texas lacked specific jurisdiction over Lidov because his online posting was not purposefully directed at Texas.
- Texas lacked specific jurisdiction over Columbia because hosting a generally accessible bulletin board was not forum-directed conduct giving rise to the defamation claim.
- Texas lacked general jurisdiction over Columbia because its Texas contacts were not continuous and systematic.

## Legal Principles

- Due process permits personal jurisdiction only when the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum arising from the defendant’s purposeful, forum-directed conduct, and the claim arises out of or relates to those contacts.
- For internet-based contacts, limited interactivity and worldwide accessibility, without forum targeting or substantial forum-related activity, generally does not establish specific jurisdiction.
- In defamation cases, reputational injury felt in the plaintiff’s home state is insufficient by itself; the defendant’s conduct must be expressly aimed at the forum state, consistent with a constrained application of the effects-based analysis.
- General jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts approximating a pervasive in-forum presence; student recruitment and an accessible website, without more, are inadequate.

## Conclusion

Texas could not constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state author or a university host for an online defamation claim where the content and hosting activity were not directed at Texas and the university’s other Texas contacts did not meet the demanding standard for general jurisdiction.


Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002)