Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional principle ensuring that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant complies with due process when the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Indemnity Suit Against Foreign Manufacturer
Fusion Power, a French corporation, sold components to a U.S. assembler that later reached a buyer in State X. When a defect caused injury, the assembler sued Fusion Power for indemnity in State X. Fusion Power moved to dismiss, arguing that merely placing goods in the stream of commerce did not create jurisdiction and that defending in State X would impose severe burdens with minimal forum interest. The court granted the motion because jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice.
Out-of-State Retailer Sued by Local Buyer
Flagship Logistics, incorporated in State Y, sold custom equipment through its website to Fabian Flynn in State Z after tailoring specifications to his State Z site and holding video consultations. Flynn sued in State Z for defects. Flagship moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion because the company purposefully directed activities at State Z, the claim arose from those contacts, and jurisdiction comported with fair play and substantial justice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Restatements
Dictionaries
Nonresident Corporate Officer Sued for Mismanagement
A nonresident corporate officer was sued in Delaware over alleged breaches arising from the corporation's activities. The officer moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion because the officer lacked minimum contacts with Delaware and exercising jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice.
Mapp v. Ohio367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Nonresident Defendant Challenging Forum
A nonresident defendant was sued in a state where it had no purposeful contacts. The defendant moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because jurisdiction would violate due-process requirements of minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice.
Griswold v. Connecticut381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Stock Ownership as Basis for Jurisdiction
Farah Fox, a nonresident, owned shares in a Delaware corporation. A plaintiff sued Fox in Delaware over corporate mismanagement, relying solely on the stock's presence in the state. Fox moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because stock ownership alone did not satisfy minimum contacts or fair play and substantial justice.
Shaffer v. Heitner433 U.S. 186 (1977)
Nonresident Trustee Accounting Dispute
A nonresident trustee was sued in a forum concerning trust administration. The trustee moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion because the trustee lacked minimum contacts and jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice.
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co.339 U.S. 306, 313-314 (1950)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What role does fair play play in the personal jurisdiction analysis?+
Fair play operates as the final reasonableness check after minimum contacts are found. It asks whether jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice by weighing burdens on the defendant, the forum's interest, and the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief.
Supporting sources
Does stream-of-commerce placement alone satisfy fair play?+
No. Mere awareness that a product may reach the forum is insufficient. Additional purposeful contacts plus a fairness analysis are required, especially when the defendant is foreign and the forum's interest is slight.
Supporting sources
How do courts apply fair play when contacts are remote but targeted?+
Courts examine whether the defendant deliberately directed activities at the forum and whether the claim relates to those activities. Repeated shipments, tailored promotions, or geo-targeted advertising can satisfy fair play when the burden of defense is modest compared with state and plaintiff interests.
Supporting sources
576 U.S. 644 (2015)Legislation and Regulation
…who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds. Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule…