General Principle
Before a court can decide a claim against a defendant, it has to have power over that defendant personally.
1. Personal Jurisdiction: General Principle
To adjudicate a claim against an individual or corporate defendant, a court must have personal jurisdiction over that defendant.
- The exercise of personal jurisdiction has two components.
- First, the exercise of jurisdiction must be proper under the Constitution’s guarantee of Due Process.
- Second, a statute or rule must empower the court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. Personal jurisdiction, in other words, is subject to both constitutional and statutory constraints.
- These general principles apply to all courts, state and federal.
- Courts distinguish between different types of personal jurisdiction. Two of these are:
- General jurisdiction, which allows a court to hear all claims against a defendant.
- Specific jurisdiction, which allows a court to hear only claims that arise out of the defendant’s contacts with the state. Concepts 2-4 further explore the distinctions between types of jurisdiction.
- The Nevada FLE does not test personal jurisdiction rules related to non-corporate organizations, such as partnerships. The civil procedure section of the exam focuses on individual and corporate defendants.
- The exam does not test knowledge of other types of territorial jurisdiction (in rem and quasi-in-rem jurisdiction).
Personal jurisdiction needs two separate things satisfied together: the exercise must be proper under Due Process, and a statute or rule must empower the court to reach the defendant. Neither alone is enough, and this applies to every court, state and federal.
Before a court can decide a claim against a defendant, it has to have power over that defendant personally. That power is personal jurisdiction, and it has two separate requirements that must both be satisfied.
- 1The constitutional requirement: exercising jurisdiction has to be proper under the Due Process guarantee.
- 2The statutory requirement: a statute or rule has to actually empower the court to reach this defendant.
Neither one alone is enough. A defendant can have all the contacts in the world with the forum, but if no statute or rule authorizes the court to reach them, there is no personal jurisdiction. And the reverse is just as true: a statute can purport to authorize jurisdiction, but if reaching the defendant would offend Due Process, the court still lacks jurisdiction. Both the Constitution and a statute or rule have to line up. These two requirements apply to every court, state and federal alike.
There is also a vocabulary you need. Courts sort personal jurisdiction into types. General jurisdiction lets a court hear any claim against the defendant, whether or not the claim has anything to do with the forum. Specific jurisdiction is narrower: it lets a court hear only claims that arise out of the defendant's contacts with the state.
This section is about individual and corporate defendants, not partnerships or other non-corporate organizations, and it is about jurisdiction over the person, not over property. Jurisdiction tied to property in the forum is a different kind of territorial jurisdiction that this exam does not test.
"Two locks, one door."
Personal jurisdiction needs both keys turned: the Constitution (Due Process) and a statute or rule. Miss either lock and the door stays shut. The most common trap collapses the two into one: an option that says contacts alone, or a statute alone, is enough. Eliminate it. Second cue: general jurisdiction = any claim; specific jurisdiction = only claims arising from forum contacts.
A bakery owner who lives and works in one state is sued in a court of a second state on a claim that has nothing to do with that second state. A statute of the second state purports to authorize its courts to hear the claim, but the owner has never set foot in that state, sells nothing there, and directs no business toward it.
Suppose the owner has rich, continuous contacts with the second state but no statute of that state authorizes the court to reach them. Again no jurisdiction, this time because the statutory key is missing. The lesson is the same: one key is never enough. The Due Process key and the statutory key must both turn.
An option that treats one requirement as the whole test: 'jurisdiction exists because the defendant has sufficient contacts,' or 'a statute authorizes it, so the court may proceed.'
Personal jurisdiction has two independent requirements, Due Process AND a statute or rule. Satisfying one without the other is not enough.An option that swaps the definitions, calling forum-related-only power 'general' or any-claim power 'specific.'
General jurisdiction hears all claims against the defendant; specific jurisdiction hears only claims arising from the defendant's forum contacts.An option resting on a true but off-point fact, such as the plaintiff's residence or where the claim arose, to decide whether the court has power at all.
Those facts do not turn the two-key requirement on or off; jurisdiction is measured against the defendant's position under Due Process and the statute.An absolute option such as 'a statute can never confer personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.'
A statute or rule is in fact the required statutory component; the universal overstatement is wrong because such authorization is part of the test.a stem that hands you a court asserting power over a defendant and tempts you to decide it on one factor, either contacts alone or a statute alone.
The instant you see an option resting on just one of the two, run the two-key check: is there a statute or rule that authorizes this court to reach this defendant, and would exercising that power satisfy Due Process?
Only if both are yes does the court have personal jurisdiction.
If the stem instead asks which type of jurisdiction is in play, ask whether the claim arises out of the defendant's forum contacts: if it must, that is specific jurisdiction; if any claim can be heard, that is general jurisdiction.
A software developer who lives and works in a western state designed an app entirely from her home office there. A user in an eastern state sued the developer in an eastern-state court over a dispute about the app. The developer has never traveled to the eastern state, has no customers there, and aims no advertising at it. The eastern state has a statute purporting to authorize its courts to hear the claim, but the developer argues that the court still cannot reach her.
Does the eastern-state court have personal jurisdiction over the developer?
A manufacturer of garden tools has continuous, substantial dealings in a southern state: a warehouse, employees, and steady sales there. A customer sued the manufacturer in a southern-state court over a defective tool bought in that state. No statute or rule of the southern state, however, authorizes its courts to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant in the manufacturer's situation. The manufacturer moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?
A retiree is sued in a court of a state where she has lived for decades. The plaintiff brings two unrelated claims: one that arose from an incident in that state and one that arose entirely in a different state years earlier. The retiree concedes the court could hear the in-state incident but argues it has no power over the unrelated, out-of-state claim. The court's jurisdiction over her rests on the kind of connection that allows it to hear all claims against her.
Which best describes the court's jurisdiction over the retiree?
A plaintiff sued a corporate defendant in a state court. The plaintiff's lawyer argued to the judge that the only question the court needs to resolve is whether the defendant's contacts with the state are strong enough under the Constitution, and that nothing else bears on whether the court may proceed against the defendant.
Is the lawyer's description of the personal jurisdiction inquiry correct?
Two friends were sued in different courts on unrelated facts. In the first suit, a court could hear any claim at all against the first friend because of his strong, enduring connection to that state. In the second suit, a court could hear only a claim arising directly out of the second friend's limited dealings in that state, and nothing more.
Which statement correctly labels the two courts' jurisdiction?