[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From:
Date: 10 May 2002
Time: 10:33:31
I cannot figure where, precisely, in the caselaw, the test for personal jurisdiction becomes power PLUS reasonableness, as opposed to the fairly clear statement in International Shoe that reasonableness EQUALS power.
"due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam . . . 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."
As I read it, this sentence asserts that the court has power whenever defendant has acted in such a way as to make it reasonable for the court to exercise power over her.
I can find nothing in the case law that explcitly abandons this formulation, and yet the tests are supposed to be cumulative. When and how does this happen?