Also known as: mere-presence · mere presence doctrine · mere presence rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle holding that the physical presence of a person or item, standing alone, does not establish the contacts, control, or intent necessary for legal consequences such as personal jurisdiction or criminal liability.
Monica Morgan owns vacant land in State A but resides and works exclusively in State B. A plaintiff files a contract action against her in State A arising from a deal negotiated entirely in State B. The court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction because the land's presence supplies no minimum contacts with the dispute.
A partnership maintains its only office in State A. One partner travels to State B on personal business and is served there. The court refuses jurisdiction over the partnership because the partner's mere presence supplies no basis for exercising authority over the firm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Melissa Mills, a convicted felon, moves into a new city without registering as required by local law. She faces prosecution even though she had no notice of the ordinance and engaged in no affirmative conduct beyond residing there. The conviction cannot stand because mere presence supplies no culpable act.
A shareholder travels to State A on personal business unrelated to corporate affairs. A plaintiff attempts to sue the corporation in State A based solely on that visit. The court dismisses because the shareholder's mere presence does not confer jurisdiction over the corporation.
An officer stops a pedestrian solely because the pedestrian is standing in a high-crime neighborhood. The stop is invalid because mere presence in the area supplies no specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion.
A partner in an unincorporated association is present in State A on personal errands. A plaintiff sues the association in State A. The court holds that the partner's mere presence is insufficient to support jurisdiction over the association.
No. Passive presence, even if continuous, does not constitute encouragement or assistance unless the defendant takes some affirmative step to instigate or help the crime.
No. Officers must point to specific, articulable facts beyond location alone to justify an investigative stop.
No. The minimum-contacts test applies to all assertions of state-court jurisdiction, and unrelated property alone supplies no contacts sufficient for jurisdiction.
No. Jurisdiction over an unincorporated association requires the same contacts that would support jurisdiction over an individual. A partner's presence by itself is insufficient.
…U. S. 352, 355 (1983); Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. , 455 U. S. 489, 494, n. 5 (1982). Of course, the mere presence of a state court interpretation does not insulate a statute from overbreadth review. We have stricken legislation when the construction supplied by the state court failed to cure the…