Also known as: minimum contact · min contacts
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A defendant's connections with the forum state, such as business activity or actions foreseeably leading to business activity, that are substantial enough to permit the forum state's courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant without offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
A Delaware trustee received a trust corpus from a Florida settlor who later moved to Florida. When Florida heirs challenged the trust, the trustee argued lack of contacts. The court held that the trustee had not purposefully availed itself of Florida law, so minimum contacts were absent.
An out-of-state shoe company employed salesmen who resided in Washington and continuously solicited orders there. When Washington assessed unemployment taxes, the company objected to jurisdiction. The Court found the systematic sales activity created minimum contacts supporting jurisdiction.
Maria Morales owned shares in a Delaware corporation but lived in Arizona. A plaintiff attached the shares in Delaware to secure a judgment on an unrelated claim. The court held that the mere presence of the shares did not create minimum contacts when the dispute bore no relation to the property.
Monica Morgan was served with process while attending a conference in California. The plaintiff sued Morgan over events that occurred entirely in New York. The court upheld jurisdiction on the basis of in-state service even though the claim was unrelated to the visit.
Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham in 1976 in West Virginia. In 1977 the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. In July 1987 the Burnhams separated. Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, was visiting her parents in that State when she filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of extreme cruelty, seeking spousal and child support, custody of the children, and possession of the family home. In early August 1987 petitioner visited Mrs. Burnham in California to discuss the children and the separation. He took the children to San Francisco for a few days. Upon returning the children to Mrs. Burnham, petitioner was served with a summons and complaint for divorce filed in California Superior Court that also sought custody of the children. After being served, petitioner returned to New Jersey. In January 1988 petitioner made a special appearance in the California action and moved to quash service of process on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the State Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the state and federal courts.
View caseMaya Malik lived with her children in California for several years before moving to New York. Her former spouse remained in California and sought increased support. The court found that Malik's prior residence with the children supported jurisdiction over the support claim.
Ezra Kulko married Sharon Kulko Horn in 1959 during a three-day stopover in California while en route from a military base in Texas to Korea. Both parties were New York domiciliaries who returned to New York after the marriage and Ezra's service. Their children Darwin and Ilsa were born in New York in 1961 and 1962. The family lived together in New York City until their separation in March 1972. Following the separation, Sharon moved to San Francisco, California. In September 1972, Sharon flew to New York to sign a separation agreement providing that the children would spend school years with their father and vacations with their mother in exchange for $3,000 annual child support payments during her custody periods. Sharon obtained a Haitian divorce incorporating the agreement and returned to California, where she remarried. The children resided with their father during the school year until December 1973, when Ilsa remained in California after her father bought her a one-way ticket. In January 1976 Darwin flew to California using a ticket sent by his mother. Less than one month after Darwin's arrival, Sharon commenced an action in California Superior Court to establish the Haitian divorce decree as a California judgment, modify it to award her full custody, and increase the father's child-support obligations. Ezra appeared specially and moved to quash service on the ground that he lacked sufficient minimum contacts with California. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court sustained the rulings in a 4-2 decision before Ezra appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
View caseMonarch Pharmaceuticals, an out-of-state corporation, appointed an agent for service in Ohio to obtain a limitations defense. When sued on an unrelated claim, the company argued the appointment did not create jurisdiction. The court addressed whether the appointment subjected the company to general jurisdiction in Ohio.
In 1974, Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., agreed with Bendix Autolite Corporation to deliver and install a boiler system at a Bendix facility in Fostoria, Ohio. Bendix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, while Midwesco is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. Bendix became dissatisfied with the work, claiming that the boiler system had been installed improperly and that it was insufficient to produce the quantity of steam specified in the contract. This diversity action was filed against Midwesco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in 1980. When Midwesco asserted the Ohio statute of limitations as a defense, Bendix responded that the statutory period had not elapsed because under Ohio law the running of the time is suspended, or tolled, for claims against entities that are not within the State and have not designated an agent for service of process. Midwesco replied that this tolling provision violated both the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the action, finding that the Ohio tolling statute constituted an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Ohio statute constituted discrimination in violation of the Commerce Clause because it required a foreign corporation to choose between exposing itself to personal jurisdiction in state courts by complying with the tolling statute, or, by refusing to comply, to remain liable in perpetuity for all lawsuits containing state causes of action filed against it in the State. Bendix appealed, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the Ohio tolling statute in 1987.
View caseThe defendant must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state. Unilateral activity by the plaintiff or a third party cannot satisfy the requirement.
Supporting sources
No. When the claim is unrelated to the property, its mere presence in the forum does not create the required contacts for either in personam or quasi in rem jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
Minimum contacts analysis supports specific jurisdiction when the claim arises out of the contacts. General jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts that render the defendant at home in the forum regardless of claim relatedness.
Supporting sources
Repeated, targeted communications directed at a forum resident over an extended period can establish purposeful availment when they give rise to the claim, even without physical presence.
Supporting sources
…to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam , if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U. S. 457, 463. See Holmes, J., in…