Also known as: minimum contact jurisdiction · minimum-contacts jurisdiction · minimum contacts · minimum contacts test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional standard for personal jurisdiction that permits a court to exercise authority over a nonresident defendant when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The standard requires purposeful availment by the defendant and a relationship between the contacts and the claim.
Maurice Marshall, a broker in State EE1, arranged shipments for Oceanic Lines, an overseas carrier with no offices or business in State FF1. When Oceanic failed to pay commissions, Maurice obtained an order arresting one of its ships docked in State FF1 for unrelated repairs. The court dismissed the suit because Oceanic had not purposefully availed itself of State FF1's laws and the claim bore no relation to the vessel's presence.
Matthew Martinez sued a Swiss supplier in State FF1 after injuries from tablets distributed there. The supplier had sold ingredients to a French firm that later shipped products nationwide but maintained no direct ties to State FF1. The court granted dismissal because the supplier's stream-of-commerce placement alone did not create minimum contacts sufficient for fair play and substantial justice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Meredith Maxwell sued a Brazilian manufacturer in Georgia after a beam collapsed at her worksite. The manufacturer sold only through U.S. wholesalers and never targeted Georgia. The court dismissed because the claim did not arise from any property or contacts in Georgia, so the minimum contacts standard barred jurisdiction.
Mina Mehta sued a Japanese valve maker in California after a motorcycle accident involving a tire tube containing its component. The maker knew its parts entered the U.S. market but took no steps to target California. The court held that mere awareness of possible resale did not establish the purposeful contacts required for jurisdiction.
Mason McCarthy bought a car in New York and was injured in Oklahoma. The regional distributor had sold the vehicle to a New York dealer but had no direct sales or advertising in Oklahoma. The court ruled that the mere possibility the car would reach Oklahoma did not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction.
Melissa Mills filed for divorce in California after her husband was served while visiting their children there. The husband lived in New Jersey and had no other ongoing ties to California. The court upheld jurisdiction because the defendant's physical presence in the state at the time of service satisfied due process under the minimum contacts framework.
No. The minimum contacts standard applies to quasi in rem actions as well. When the claim is unrelated to the property, its mere presence does not create the required purposeful contacts with the forum.
Supporting sources
No. Mere awareness or foreseeability that a product might enter the forum through the stream of commerce is insufficient. The defendant must purposefully direct its activities toward the forum state.
Supporting sources
Even when contacts exist, the exercise of jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Courts weigh the burden on the defendant, the forum's interest, and the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief.
Supporting sources
…to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam , if he be not present within 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…