The Contacts a Court Looks For
The constitutional test has three parts and the first does most of the work. A defendant must have reached into the state deliberately, and the claim must come out of that reaching rather than merely coexist with it in the same period.
The rule in short
Constitutional due process permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant where the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state, where the claim arises out of or relates to those activities, and where the exercise of jurisdiction is otherwise reasonable. The first element excludes random, fortuitous or attenuated contacts and contacts created by someone else's unilateral act.
The constitutional limit on a state's reach is usually described as a test of fairness, which makes it sound more open than it is. In practice the analysis has a definite structure, one element carries most of the weight, and a defendant who understands which element that is can assess exposure long before a summons arrives.
Purposeful availment
The defendant must have chosen the state. The requirement is that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum, invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Random and fortuitous contacts do not count. A connection that arose by accident, or that the defendant neither sought nor expected, is excluded however real it is.
Nor do contacts created by someone else. The unilateral activity of a plaintiff or a third party cannot supply a defendant's contacts, which is the answer to the product carried across a state line by its buyer.
The privilege comes with the burden. The reasoning is one of exchange: a party that takes the benefit of doing business in a state accepts the possibility of answering there for disputes arising from it.
And the statutory question runs alongside it. Purposeful contacts satisfy the Constitution and not necessarily the forum's own statute, which is examined in what a long-arm statute reaches.
What counts as reaching in
Soliciting business there. Advertising directed at the state, sales calls, trade show attendance and targeted marketing are deliberate acts aimed at residents.
Negotiating and performing a contract there. A single contract can be enough where it was negotiated with a resident, contemplated continuing obligations in the state and was performed at least partly there.
Shipping goods under the defendant's own arrangements. Choosing to deliver into a state is a choice about that state, examined further in shipping, advertising and purposeful availment.
Maintaining a continuing relationship. Ongoing supply, service, support or supervision creates connections that a one-off transaction does not.
Aiming conduct at a resident. Where an intentional act is directed at a person known to be in the state and the harm is felt there, courts have found availment even without physical presence.
| Element | Question | Who bears it |
|---|---|---|
| Purposeful availment | Did the defendant reach into the state | Plaintiff |
| Relatedness | Does the claim arise from those contacts | Plaintiff |
| Reasonableness | Would jurisdiction be unfair anyway | Defendant |
| Statutory reach | Does the long-arm statute cover it | Plaintiff |
| Each defendant separately | Are these this party's own contacts | Plaintiff |
Arising out of or relating to
The claim must connect to the contacts. Specific jurisdiction is claim-specific, and a defendant subject to it for one dispute is not thereby subject to it for another.
Two limbs, not one. Arising out of suggests causation; relating to is broader, and the disjunctive wording means a strict but-for showing is not always required.
Unrelated claims need general jurisdiction. Which requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render the defendant essentially at home in the state, a much higher threshold set out in general and specific jurisdiction compared.
The connection is assessed against the pleaded claim. A complaint that describes the relationship broadly may establish a connection that a narrowly pleaded one does not, which makes the drafting consequential.
And each defendant is assessed separately. Contacts of a parent are not automatically those of a subsidiary, and jurisdiction over one party in a case says nothing about jurisdiction over another.
Where to advertise, where to ship, whom to hire and which contracts to sign are each also decisions about where the business can be sued. Companies that treat jurisdiction as something that happens to them have generally never connected the two, and the connection is worth making before the first summons rather than after it.
Reasonableness
A backstop rather than a gateway. Where purposeful contacts and a connected claim exist, the defendant must present a compelling case that jurisdiction would nonetheless offend fair play and substantial justice.
The burden on the defendant. Distance, cost and the practical difficulty of defending far from home, weighed realistically rather than rhetorically.
The forum state's interest. Its stake in providing a remedy for its residents and in regulating conduct affecting them.
The plaintiff's interest in convenient relief. Together with the efficient resolution of the controversy, which frequently favors the state where the evidence and witnesses are.
Which overlaps with a different doctrine. Where jurisdiction exists but another forum is plainly better suited, the answer is transfer or dismissal on the grounds described in forum non conveniens between two states.
Applying it in advance
Map where the business actually reaches. Customers, shipments, marketing, agents, employees and continuing relationships, listed by state. This is the exposure map, and most businesses have never drawn one.
Distinguish targeting from availability. A website open to everybody is different from advertising aimed at a state, and the difference is what decides most online cases.
Watch the contracts. A forum clause creates consent regardless of contacts, and a choice-of-law clause is a factor in the availment analysis, as discussed in what a choice-of-law clause achieves.
Watch registration too. Qualifying to do business in a state and appointing an agent may amount to consent independently of any contacts analysis.
And record what was not done. A defendant contesting jurisdiction proves a negative — no offices, no employees, no solicitation, no shipments — and that showing is far easier to make from records kept contemporaneously than from recollection years later.
The practical value of the test is that it is largely within a business's own control. Contacts are made by decisions — where to advertise, where to ship, whom to hire, which contracts to sign — and each of those decisions is also a decision about where the business can be sued. Companies that treat jurisdiction as something that happens to them are usually companies that have never connected the two, and the connection is worth making before the first summons rather than after it.
It helps to see how the three elements interact in a marginal case. Suppose a contractor in one state agrees to design a system for a customer in another, working remotely, with a single site visit for measurements. The visit is a contact but a slight one. The negotiated contract with a resident, performed for delivery into that state, is a stronger one. If the claim is that the design was defective and the system failed on the customer's premises, the connection between the contacts and the claim is direct, and specific jurisdiction is likely regardless of how brief the physical presence was. If the claim is instead an unrelated fee dispute over a different project entirely, the same contacts do nothing, because the connection element fails.
Change one fact and the analysis moves again. If the customer found the contractor through a national directory, placed the order without any solicitation, and collected the work themselves, the availment element weakens sharply: nothing about the arrangement was the contractor's decision about that state. If instead the contractor advertised in the state, held a license there and had worked for several clients locally, the contacts are plainly purposeful and the argument shifts entirely to whether this particular claim relates to them.
That is the whole method, and it is worth practicing on hypothetical facts before it is needed on real ones. The elements are few, they are applied in order, and the answers they produce are considerably more predictable than the reputation of this area suggests. What makes cases difficult is almost never the doctrine; it is that the underlying facts about what a business did in a state were never recorded, and are being reconstructed under pressure years later.
Points to carry away
- Purposeful availment requires a deliberate reaching into the state.
- Random, fortuitous and attenuated contacts do not count.
- The claim must arise out of or relate to the contacts.
- Reasonableness weighs burden, state interest and efficiency.
- Contacts created by a third party's unilateral act are not the defendant's.
Questions readers ask
What makes a contact purposeful?
That the defendant chose it. The test excludes contacts that are random, fortuitous or attenuated, and contacts created by the unilateral activity of somebody else. A business that solicits customers in a state, negotiates with residents, ships goods there under its own arrangements or maintains a continuing relationship with someone there has made choices about that state. A business whose product was carried across a line by a purchaser, or whose contract was assigned to a resident without its involvement, has not. The distinction is between reaching in and being reached.
How close does the connection to the claim have to be?
Closer than a general association and looser than strict causation. The formulation used is that the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the state, and the second limb does real work: a claim can relate to activities in the state without being caused by them in a but-for sense. What will not suffice is a claim wholly unconnected to anything the defendant did there, which is a matter for general jurisdiction and a much higher threshold.
Can a defendant win on reasonableness alone?
Rarely, and it happens. Where purposeful contacts exist and the claim relates to them, the burden shifts to the defendant to present a compelling case that jurisdiction would nonetheless be unreasonable. The factors are the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest, the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in efficiency, and the shared interest of the states in substantive social policies. Between two American states the burden factor carries less weight than it does internationally, which is why success on this element alone is uncommon.
Sources
- Legal Information Institute — Minimum Contactslaw.cornell.edu
- Legal Information Institute — Personal Jurisdictionlaw.cornell.edu
- Legal Information Institute — Due Processlaw.cornell.edu
- Legal Information Institute — Purposeful Availmentlaw.cornell.edu
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 — Defenses and Objectionslaw.cornell.edu
- United States Courts — Court Role and Structureuscourts.gov
Right Way Review is a publication, not a law firm. This article states general rules and cites its sources; it is not advice about any particular case, and the law differs by state and changes over time.
More in Being Sued in Another State
General and Specific Jurisdiction Compared
General jurisdiction permits a court to hear any claim against a defendant, however unconnected to the state, and requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render the defendant essentially at home there. For an individual that means domicile; for a corporation it means the place of incorporation and the principal place of business, with exceptional cases beyond those.
A Default Judgment Entered in Another State
Full faith and credit requires each state to give a sister-state judgment the effect it has where rendered, which is enforced through a registration procedure adopted in most states rather than by fresh litigation. A judgment debtor cannot reopen the merits, cannot argue that the rendering state applied the wrong law and cannot invoke public policy.
What Appointing a Registered Agent Concedes
A business qualifying to do business in another state must generally appoint a registered agent to receive service of process there. That appointment reliably means papers can be served, which removes one obstacle a plaintiff would otherwise face. Whether registration also amounts to consent to general jurisdiction — the power to hear any claim, however unconnected — is a question of the registering state's own law, and states differ sharply.