Also known as: substantially just · substantive justice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The fairness component of the due process analysis for personal jurisdiction. It requires that the maintenance of the suit not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice when the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum.
SuriHeat, a Malaysian company, sold fryers only to a Canadian distributor that resold them nationwide. After an explosion injured a worker in a Midwestern restaurant, the distributor faced suit there and filed a third-party indemnity claim against SuriHeat. The court dismissed the claim because the severe burden on SuriHeat and the forum's minimal interest in a foreign-to-foreign reimbursement dispute made jurisdiction unreasonable.
CloudCollab, based in State A, ran targeted ads in State B, sold recurring subscriptions to State B freelancers, and provided remote support. A State B freelancer sued for breach of the subscription agreement. The court denied the motion to dismiss because the ongoing commercial relationship satisfied minimum contacts and the exercise of jurisdiction was fair.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Scott Summers visited State C for a conference and was served with process while there. The plaintiff sued over an unrelated business dispute. The court upheld jurisdiction because physical presence at the time of service satisfied due process under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Sydney Santos owned shares in a Delaware corporation but lived and worked elsewhere. A shareholder derivative suit was filed in Delaware. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because mere ownership of stock did not create the minimum contacts needed to make the suit fair.
Sapphire Holdings sought a variance from a single-family zoning ordinance to build apartments on its land. The board denied the request after weighing practical difficulties against the ordinance's purpose. The court upheld the denial because the decision preserved substantial justice under the zoning scheme.
Samantha Stone lived with her grandchildren in a single-family zone that limited occupancy to nuclear families. She applied for a variance after receiving a violation notice. The board granted relief because denying the variance would impose unnecessary hardship without advancing the ordinance's goals.
It forms the second prong of the due process test. Even when minimum contacts exist, the court must still determine whether exercising jurisdiction would be fair under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Supporting sources
Jurisdiction is unreasonable when the burden on the defendant is severe, the forum's interest is slight, and the dispute involves foreign parties with little connection to the forum, as in third-party indemnity claims between overseas corporations.
Supporting sources
No. Mere awareness that a product may reach the forum is not enough to make jurisdiction fair when the claim is an indemnity action between foreign entities and the forum has minimal interest in the dispute.
Supporting sources
Repeated, targeted virtual dealings such as video conferences and ongoing support directed at forum residents can create minimum contacts that make the exercise of jurisdiction fair under the substantial justice standard.
Supporting sources
…in harmony with its general purpose and intent, so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secure and substantial justice done. Penalties are prescribed for violations, and it is provided that the various provisions are to be regarded as independent and the holding of any provision to be unconstitutional, void…