For decades, courts throughout the country have abided by two carefully constructed types of personal jurisdiction for out-of-state defendants: general and specific.
“General” personal jurisdiction permits a court to assert a form of all-encompassing jurisdiction over a defendant, regardless of whether the suit at issue related to the defendant’s contact with the state, so long as the defendant had sufficiently significant contact (usually ones referred to as “continuous and systematic) with the forum. “Specific” personal jurisdiction permits a court to assert a narrower form of jurisdiction over a defendant, even though that defendant did not have “continuous or systematic” contacts with the forum, so long as the lawsuit arose from or related to the defendant’s specific contacts with the forum (or so long as there was a “but-for” relationship between the lawsuit and such contacts.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]