traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
/truh-DISH-uh-nuhl NOH-shuhns uv FAIR PLAY and sub-STAN-shuhl JUS-tis/
Also known as:fair play and substantial justice · traditional notions of fair play · Int'l Shoe standard · due process jurisdiction test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional standard requiring that a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The standard evaluates the quality and nature of the defendant's contacts, the burden on the defendant, the forum's interest in adjudicating the dispute, and the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief.
Sources & Authorities· 2 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Indemnity Claim Against Foreign Manufacturer
SuriHeat, a Malaysian company, sells deep fryers only to a Canadian distributor that resells them nationwide. After a fryer explodes in a Midwestern restaurant, the restaurant sues the distributor in state court. The distributor then brings a third-party indemnity claim against SuriHeat. The court dismisses the indemnity claim because SuriHeat's mere awareness that its products might reach the forum through an independent distributor does not create minimum contacts sufficient to satisfy fair play and substantial justice when the forum's interest in the foreign-to-foreign reimbursement dispute is minimal.
Sales Representatives Creating Contacts
International Shoe sends sales representatives into Washington to solicit orders for shoes. The representatives take samples and travel throughout the state, though contracts are accepted only in Missouri. When Washington sues the company for unemployment contributions, the Court holds that the repeated solicitation activities establish minimum contacts with the forum so that requiring the company to defend there does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Child Support Action Against Out-of-State Father
Kulko, a New York resident, allows his children to live with their mother in California after she moves there. The mother later sues Kulko in California for increased child support. The Court concludes that Kulko's consent to the children's relocation does not constitute purposeful availment of California benefits sufficient to satisfy traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, so California lacks personal jurisdiction over him.
Kulko v. Superior Courtsupra, 436 U.S., at 94-95
Stock Ownership Alone Insufficient
Heitner brings a shareholder derivative suit in Delaware against officers and directors of a Delaware corporation. The defendants own stock in the corporation but have no other contacts with Delaware. The Court holds that the mere presence of the defendants' stock in Delaware does not create minimum contacts with the forum that would make the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Shaffer v. Heitner433 U.S. 186 (1977)
Service on Transient Defendant
Burnham, a New Jersey resident, visits California on business and is served with divorce papers while there. He challenges California's jurisdiction, arguing that his brief presence does not satisfy the minimum contacts test. The Court holds that service on a physically present defendant remains a traditional basis for jurisdiction that comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice without further inquiry into contacts.
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin495 U.S. 604, 618, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990)
Libel Suit Against National Magazine
Keeton, a New York resident, sues Hustler Magazine in New Hampshire for libel published nationwide. Hustler has no offices or employees in New Hampshire but distributes thousands of copies there each month. The Court holds that the regular circulation of the magazine in the forum creates minimum contacts with the state so that exercising jurisdiction over the libel claim does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
What role does the fair play and substantial justice standard play in the personal jurisdiction analysis?+
The standard supplies the ultimate constitutional limit on a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Even when minimum contacts exist, a court must still determine whether requiring the defendant to litigate in the forum would be reasonable in light of the burden on the defendant, the forum's interest, and the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief.
Supporting sources
Does placing a product into the stream of commerce automatically satisfy the fair play and substantial justice standard?+
No. Mere awareness that a product may reach the forum through an independent distributor is not alone sufficient to establish minimum contacts. In addition, even if contacts are found, the fairness factors may render jurisdiction unreasonable when the forum's interest is slight and the burden on a foreign defendant is severe.
Supporting sources
How does the standard differ from the old territorial power approach?+
The standard replaced rigid territorial rules based on physical presence with a flexible inquiry into the defendant's contacts with the forum and the reasonableness of requiring defense there. The focus shifted from whether the defendant could be served inside the state to whether the contacts make jurisdiction fair and just.
Supporting sources
When may a court still exercise jurisdiction even without extensive forum contacts?+
Jurisdiction remains proper when the defendant is physically present in the forum and served there, because that traditional basis of jurisdiction continues to satisfy due process without further minimum-contacts analysis.
Supporting sources
What factors does a court weigh under the fair play and substantial justice inquiry?+
A court considers the burden on the defendant of litigating in the forum, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution, and the shared interest of the states in fundamental substantive social policies.
Supporting sources
jurisdiction
. The mere presence of property in a state does not automatically confer
jurisdiction
over a nonresident defendant. The defendant must…
." The distinction between
jurisdiction
over absent defendants and
jurisdiction
over defendants who are present in the forum at the time of service has been preserved in our jurisprudence.…
“does not offend ‘
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
.’” International
Shoe
Co. v. Washington , 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945), quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940). I On September 23, 1978, on Interstate Highway 80 in…
.'" 326 U. S., at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, supra , at 463. While the interests of the forum State and of the plaintiff in proceeding with the cause in the plaintiff's forum of…
Civil ProcedureJurisdiction and venue · Personal jurisdictionUBEFoundational