that suit does not offend traditional notions of fair playwhen a state might sub
ID: 1133996 • Letter: T
Question
that suit does not offend traditional notions of fair playwhen a state might subject a person or business to the and substantial justice. walls of its courtrooms. Obviously, this is not a bright-line Applying these standards, the activities carried on in test, so battles of in personam jurisdiction abound to this behalf of International Shoe in the state of Washington day. International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, were neither irregular nor casual. The obligation which 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, Web 1945 U.S is here sued upon arose out of those very activities. It isLexis 1447 (Supreme Court of the United States). evident that these operations establish sufficient contacts or ties with the state of the forum to make it reason- able and just, according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice, to permit the state to Is it difficult determining when a party has had the mini- enforce the obligations which International Shoe bas inmum contacts with a state? How does one determine curred there Critical Legal Thinking Questions what constitutes "traditional notions of fair play and sub- stantial justice"? Thus, the famous "minimum contacts" test and "tradi- tional notions of fair play and substantial justice" establishExplanation / Answer
Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice". A non-resident defendant may have minimum contacts with the forum state if they :-
1) have direct contact with the state
2) have a contract with a resident of the state
3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state
4) seek to serve residents of the forum state
5) have satisfied the Calder effects test
6) have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.
Examples that usually are considered to be minimum contacts include any kind of contract or business practice with a member within the territory, such as insurance contracts sold in a particular locale. Those that are not considered of interest would be advertising. The important exception has been Internet advertising which some courts have found sufficient to apply the minimum contacts principle.
Fair play and substantial justice is a requirement or standard of fairness which a court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must meet in order to avoid a violation of the defendant's right to due process see also minimum contacts.Supreme Court held that in order for a state court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant whose residence is elsewhere, the court must establish that the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Among the factors used to make this determination are the difficulty for the defendant of appearing in the court, the state's interest in deciding the case, and the plaintiff's interest in the convenience of the court and the effectiveness of the relief to be obtained there.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.