Also known as: traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice · minimum contacts test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The fairness requirement that a court must meet in its assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to comport with due process. The standard evaluates the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest in the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution, and the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies.
Fisher Foods, a Japanese valve maker, supplied parts to a Taiwanese tube manufacturer that sold finished products to California distributors. After a California accident led to an indemnity claim, Fisher Foods faced suit in California despite having no direct sales or marketing there. The severe burden of litigating in a distant forum with minimal state interest rendered the exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable.
Falcon Dynamics hired Felicity French as a Washington sales representative who solicited orders that became binding only after acceptance in Missouri. When Washington sought to enforce unemployment contributions, the company argued it had no presence. The representative's systematic solicitation created contacts making jurisdiction fair and reasonable.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Forrest Falconer, a New Jersey resident, was served with divorce papers while visiting his children in California for three days. He moved to quash service arguing insufficient contacts. Because he was physically present and served in the forum, jurisdiction satisfied traditional notions of fair play.
Frederick Ferguson and other nonresident officers held shares in a Delaware corporation. A shareholder sued them in Delaware over corporate mismanagement using quasi-in-rem jurisdiction based solely on the stock. Mere ownership of forum property without additional contacts failed to satisfy fair play and substantial justice.
Fumiko Fujimoto, a Delaware trustee, administered a trust whose settlor later moved to Florida and died there. Florida beneficiaries sued the trustee in Florida after the settlor's death. The trustee's lack of any purposeful contacts with Florida meant jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice.
Finn Fletcher, a Wyoming domiciliary, was served in Colorado with a Wyoming lawsuit over partnership obligations. He challenged jurisdiction claiming the service occurred outside the state. Because Fletcher remained a Wyoming resident with ongoing ties, jurisdiction comported with fair play and substantial justice.
Courts weigh the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution, and the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies.
Supporting sources
A strong showing of fairness may permit jurisdiction on a lesser showing of contacts, but minimum contacts remain required. Fairness factors cannot create jurisdiction where purposeful availment is absent.
Supporting sources
Mere awareness that a product may reach the forum through the stream of commerce is insufficient. Additional purposeful direction toward the forum is required before fairness analysis even applies.
Supporting sources
Fairness factors are relevant primarily in specific jurisdiction cases. General jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum, making fairness analysis less central.
Supporting sources
…the territory of the forum, 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.” Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U. S. 457, 463. See Holmes, J., in McDonald v. Mabee , 243 U. S. 90, 91. Compare Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen , 318 U. S. 313, 316, 319. See Blackmer v.…