Also known as: substantial contact · sufficient contacts
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A defendant's purposeful and continuous connections with a forum state that are sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. The contacts must arise from the defendant's own deliberate conduct directed at the forum and must make it reasonable to require the defendant to defend there.
Summit Finance leased equipment to PetroNova for use abroad and sued in State X after default. PetroNova owned obsolete rigs left on a decommissioned site in State X years earlier. Because the rigs had no connection to the lease dispute and PetroNova conducted no other business in State X, the court found no substantial contacts and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Global Parts Inc. entered a five-year supply franchise with a dealer in State Y requiring monthly deliveries, training visits, and revenue reporting. When the dealer defaulted, Global Parts sued in State Y. The court found substantial contacts from the deliberate, ongoing performance directed at the forum and upheld jurisdiction.
In 1998, Albert Florence was arrested in Essex County, New Jersey, after fleeing from police officers. He was charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. Florence entered a plea of guilty to two lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine in monthly installments. In 2003, after he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later, but the warrant remained in a statewide computer database. Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jersey, Florence and his wife were stopped in their automobile by a state trooper. Based on the outstanding warrant, the officer arrested Florence and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center, where he was held for six days before transfer to the Essex County Correctional Facility. Burlington County jail procedures required every arrestee to shower with a delousing agent. Officers would check arrestees for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as they disrobed. Florence claims he was also instructed to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. The Essex County Correctional Facility admits more than 25,000 inmates each year. When Florence arrived, all arriving detainees passed through a metal detector and waited in a group holding cell. They were instructed to remove their clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband. An officer looked at their ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arms, armpits, and other body openings. Florence alleges he was required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough in a squatting position as part of the process. After a mandatory shower, during which his clothes were inspected, he was admitted to the facility. He was released the next day when the charges were dismissed. Florence sued the governmental entities that operated the jails, one of the wardens, and certain other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court certified a class of individuals charged with a nonindictable offense. Those individuals were processed at either jail and directed to strip naked even though an officer had not articulated any reasonable suspicion they were concealing contraband. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment on the unlawful search claim. A divided panel of the Third Circuit reversed.
View caseTechWare Corp. signed a multi-year distribution agreement with a retailer in State Z that included quarterly shipments, marketing support, and a forum-selection clause. After a payment dispute arose from that agreement, TechWare sued in State Z. The court held the continuous, purposeful dealings created substantial contacts supporting personal jurisdiction.
In August 1972, the Janaf Branch of the United Virginia Bank/Seaboard National in Norfolk, Virginia, was robbed. Witnesses saw two men wearing masks and carrying guns enter the bank while a third man waited in the car. About an hour after the robbery, the getaway car was discovered. Inside was found a rent receipt signed by one "Allen R. Norris" and a lease, also signed by Norris, for a house in Norfolk. Two men subsequently convicted of participating in the robbery were arrested at the rented house with the proceeds of the robbery and the guns and masks used by the gunmen. Government agents traced the rent receipt to respondent Billy Gale Henry. On the basis of this information, Henry was arrested in Atlanta, Georgia, in November 1972. Two weeks later he was indicted for armed robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). He was held pending trial in the Norfolk city jail. Counsel was appointed on November 27, 1972. On November 21, 1972, shortly after Henry was incarcerated, government agents contacted Nichols, an inmate at the Norfolk city jail who had been engaged to provide confidential information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a paid informant. Nichols informed the agent that he was housed in the same cellblock with Henry. The agent told Nichols to be alert to any statements made by the federal prisoners but not to initiate any conversation with or question Henry regarding the bank robbery. In early December, after Nichols had been released from jail, the agent again contacted Nichols, who reported that he and Henry had engaged in conversation and that Henry had told him about the robbery of the Janaf bank. Nichols was paid for furnishing the information. When Henry was tried in March 1973, Nichols testified that he had an opportunity to have some conversations with Mr. Henry while he was in the jail. Henry told him about going to the Janaf Branch to see which employees opened the vault and described the details of the robbery. The jury was not informed that Nichols was a paid Government informant. On the basis of this testimony, Henry was convicted of bank robbery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, and his petition to this Court for a writ of certiorari was denied. On August 28, 1975, Henry moved to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He alleged that he had just learned that Nichols was a paid Government informant and that the introduction of Nichols' testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. The District Court denied the motion without a hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for an evidentiary inquiry. On remand, the District Court again denied the motion after reviewing affidavits from the government agents. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the actions of the Government impaired Henry's Sixth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether respondent's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel was violated by the admission at trial of incriminating statements made by respondent to his cellmate, an undisclosed Government informant, after indictment and while in custody.
View caseThe defendant must have purposefully directed activities at the forum through an ongoing relationship such as a long-term contract requiring performance there, regular communications, or choice-of-law clauses. Sporadic or unilateral actions by the plaintiff do not count.
Supporting sources
No. When the claim has no relation to the property, its mere presence does not satisfy the minimum contacts standard. The defendant must have engaged in purposeful conduct tied to the dispute.
Supporting sources
Courts examine the contract's duration, the volume of performance directed at the forum, actual purchases or training visits, and any choice-of-law provision. These factors together show a deliberate, continuing relationship that supports jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
…merits emphasis that the Court's resurrection of the unawareness factor is indispensable to its holding. For, in Brewer , substantial contact and conversation with a confined defendant preceded delivery of the "Christian burial speech." Yet the Court clearly deemed the speech critical in finding a Massiah violation; it thus…