Also known as: nexuses · sufficient nexus · minimum contacts
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A connection between a defendant and the forum state that satisfies due process. The connection arises when the defendant purposefully directs activities toward the state and invokes its benefits and protections. Mere unilateral activity by a third party or the presence of unrelated property does not create the required link.
A direct relationship between a government-imposed permit condition and a legitimate public interest that would justify denying the permit outright. The link ensures the condition mitigates impacts caused by the proposed development rather than serving an unrelated purpose.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A connection between a defendant and the forum state that satisfies due process. The connection arises when the defendant purposefully directs activities toward the state and invokes its benefits and protections. Mere unilateral activity by a third party or the presence of unrelated property does not create the required link.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nia Nkosi, a Delaware resident, received trust distributions from a Florida settlor. A Florida beneficiary sued Nkosi in Florida court over the trust administration. Nkosi had never traveled to Florida or directed any trust activity there. The court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because no purposeful availment occurred.
Nathan Nguyen, an Arizona insurer, mailed a single life-insurance policy to a California resident and collected premiums by mail. After the insured died, the beneficiary sued in California. Nguyen had no office or agents in California. The court upheld jurisdiction because the policy created minimum contacts that made suit fair.
Norman Nash, a nonresident, owned shares in a Delaware corporation. A shareholder derivative suit sought to sequester the shares to compel Nash's appearance. The underlying claims arose from corporate conduct outside Delaware. The court held that the stock's presence alone supplied no jurisdiction over the unrelated claims.
The jurisdiction nexus focuses on the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum state that make litigation there fair. The exactions nexus requires a direct relationship between a permit condition and a specific impact of the proposed development that the government could have prevented outright.
Supporting sources
No. When the dispute is unrelated to the property, its presence alone does not create the minimum contacts needed for jurisdiction. The claim must arise from or relate to the defendant's purposeful contacts with the state.
Supporting sources
A direct relationship between a government-imposed permit condition and a legitimate public interest that would justify denying the permit outright. The link ensures the condition mitigates impacts caused by the proposed development rather than serving an unrelated purpose.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nobel Dynamics sought a permit to enlarge its retail store and pave additional parking. The city conditioned approval on dedication of a strip for a public bike path. The path would serve general traffic unrelated to the store's added customers. The court found the condition lacked rough proportionality to the project's impact.
Nyah Ndlovu applied to rebuild a beachfront house. The coastal commission required an easement allowing the public to walk across the property parallel to the ocean. The easement would not improve views blocked by the new house. The court held the condition lacked an essential nexus to the stated interest in visual access.
Nova Pharmaceuticals requested a permit to expand its research facility. The city demanded a cash payment into a stormwater fund instead of on-site detention. The payment amount exceeded any projected runoff increase from the expansion. The court treated the demand as an exaction subject to nexus and proportionality review.
The condition constitutes an unconstitutional taking. The government may not condition permit approval on conveyance of property interests without showing the condition directly mitigates an impact caused by the development.
Supporting sources
Yes. After establishing an essential nexus, the government must also show that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impact of the development. The burden rests on the government to make individualized findings supporting proportionality.
Supporting sources
…239 U. S. 33 (1915). Indeed, we do not read the appellee's brief as really asserting anything to the contrary. The "logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated," Flast v. Cohen , 392 U. S., at 102, and the necessary degree of contentiousness, Golden v. Zwickler , 394 U. S.…
…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…
…of the Fourteenth Amendment because it permitted the Delaware courts to exercise jurisdiction over them without sufficient minimum contacts
…based on alleged overbreadth, is that the monetary thresholds in the recordkeeping and reporting provisions lack a substantial nexus with the claimed governmental interests, for the amounts involved are too low even to attract the attention of the candidate, much less have a corrupting influence. The provisions contain…
…condition is a valid exercise of its authority to regulate land use in the coastal zone. II. The Court’s new “essential nexus” test is not supported by precedent. The cases cited by the Court do not establish such a rigid requirement. III. Even under the Court’s test, the easement condition should be upheld. The…
No. The defendant must itself purposefully avail itself of the forum. Contacts created solely by the plaintiff or another party do not satisfy the requirement.
Supporting sources