In the United States, it is important for courts to have two kinds of jurisdiction when it comes to case proceedings. These two kinds are personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction pertains to whether or not a court can hear a case on a certain subject matter. Generally, this kind of jurisdiction is pretty clear cut. On the contrary, personal jurisdiction refers to whether or not a court has authority over a person who is being sued. This kind of jurisdiction can be a little hard to determine. The fundamental ideology behind determining personal jurisdiction is gauging whether the judicial system of that state has a vested interest in you and whether or not it possesses a right to make decisions that will bound you.
What Is Personal Jurisdiction?
The power that the court has which allows it to pass out orders to individuals present within the areas, stems from the supreme authority of the federal government. The authority of the court permits it to reach out to all residents of a state, including those who are not in the state for some time, and even out of state residents who visit the state for a short period of time.
Personal Jurisdiction is a court’s jurisdiction over the claim’s of the party involved. This forms a stark contrast with subject matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law and realities engaged with the suit. In any case where a court does not have personal jurisdiction over an individual (or any party involved), its decisions or pronouncements can’t be upheld upon that individual, aside from by comity; i.e., to the degree that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the individual, permits the court to authorize them upon that individual. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the position to lead on the law and realities of a suit, and the ability to implement its decision on involvement with the suit. At times, territorial jurisdiction may likewise restrict a court’s outreach, for example, forestalling a case concerning incidents happening in a foreign area between two residents of the home jurisdiction.
Choosing whether an individual needs to be part of the personal jurisdiction of a court has not been hard to decide. Trouble has emerged when courts have needed to choose whether or not enterprises were liable to personal jurisdiction. Companies have a legitimate presence along with a legal personality. However they do not have a substantial presence. They are dependent upon claims including TORT and agreements. As enterprises became sources that boost the national economy, the courts of a state experienced issues discovering personal jurisdiction if the company was not situated inside that state.
Types Of Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction can be divided into four distinct categories in case law. Three of these are pretty simple to understand, however, determining the fourth one which is “minimum contacts,” can be quite complicated. Following are the four types of personal jurisdiction.
Presence
Being presented with a duplicate of the request and complaints while truly present in the gathering state is adequate to give a court in that state jurisdiction over the individual who was served. That implies that regardless of whether you were just barely going through the state for a couple of minutes, if you are appropriately served, you can be sued in that state.
Domicile/Place of Business
The courts of any state sometimes do not require anything more than a domicile or residence in order to have jurisdiction over you. This is also applicable to any state where you want to set up your own business. In other words, even if the event that took you to court happened in some other state or even in some other country, there are high chances that you can always be sued in the state you are a resident of or where you have set up and are handling your business.
Consent
It should not come as a surprise that you can even just give your consent to a court to have personal jurisdiction over you. There are two fundamental forms of consent: express and implied. As far as express consent is concerned, you can have it voluntarily by presenting yourself before the court and giving yourself in over to its jurisdiction. So, in other words, even if for some reason, a court did not have power over you, you can give it that power, simply by showing up. On the other hand, there is also implied consent. The most common type of this consent is when you drive on the roads of that state. This is seen by courts as giving implied consent to the laws regulating roads. Therefore, upon having a car accident in that state, a court does have personal jurisdiction over you.
Minimum Contacts
Lastly, if you uphold certain minimum contacts with the state where the court is, this will also give the court the authority to have personal jurisdiction over you. Minimum contacts is kind of an all rounded, comprehensive jurisdiction where a court decides that you have been in touch with the state enough to justify the court having personal jurisdiction over you. In order for the basic test courts to determine whether or not you have established minimum contacts with a state, you need to have:
- Continuous, Systematic Contacts and Related Lawsuits
- Continuous, Systematic Contacts and Unrelated Lawsuits
- Sporadic or Casual Activity and Related Lawsuits
- Sporadic or Casual Activity and Unrelated Lawsuits
Specific Personal Jurisdiction
Specific personal jurisdiction alludes to jurisdiction depending upon a person’s minimum contacts with the forum state, especially when the petition stems from or is related to those contacts. Typically, when the court asks for minimum contacts, it means that the defendant must have taken actions that were deliberately directed towards the forum state. Such actions can include, but are not limited to, selling items in the state, being incorporated in the state, visiting the state, or bringing property in the state.
Example Of Personal Jurisdiction
Jane is a New York City citizen who is on a holiday in California. While in California, she buys what she is told are two brand new fully loaded computer systems at Mark’s Computer Shop. Later on Jane finds out that the computers are loaded with reused parts and would not perform the tasks that Mark claimed they would. In this situation. Jane cannot sue Mark in her home state of New York. New York does not have any personal jurisdiction over Mark because he is neither a citizen of nor does business in New York.
How To Get Personal Jurisdiction
In cases where you have to file the lawsuit in any state apart from where the defendant lives or has an established business in, personal jurisdiction rules can be a little complicated. If the defendant has never been in your home state, nor do they have a business there, then it is not simple to just sue that person.
So to make sure that the defendant is not sued in an unfavourable, possibly far-off location, the terms and conditions of personal jurisdiction states that such facts should exist and be mentioned that makes the court’s exertion of authority over a non-citizen completely fair. Following are some basic situations where courts have personal jurisdiction over non-citizens:
Defendant served while in the state.
This is when after a lawsuit has been filed, the defendant comes to the state where you filed it, even if it is for a short time, and upon that short visit, you serve the defendant with the court papers which are usually indictments and complaints.
Defendant caused a traffic accident in the state.
In this case, the defendant has usually caused a traffic accident in the state where you have filed the lawsuit. Most of the time, the case grows out of the traffic accident. Almost all of the states have traffic laws which gives their courts the authority to pass out orders concerning cases based on road accidents in that state, regardless of the parties’ citizenship. This allows you to serve the defendant with papers anywhere in the world. They do not necessarily have to be in the state where the lawsuit was filed.
Defendant has some contact within the state.
This is when the defendant, whether it is an individual or a corporation, has participated in at least a small but significant amount of activity that falls under the umbrella of minimum contacts. This has to be in the state in which you’ve filed the lawsuit and the case should incorporate that activity which made you file the lawsuit. The minimum contacts requirement typically means that a defendant must have enough contact with the state where a case has been filed. This helps the judge to conclude whether or not it is a just decision for the state to use their authority over the defendant. A judge would probably call for minimum contacts in the following situations:
- When a corporation has its main headquarters in another state but also manages a branch office, store, or warehouse in the state where they were handed the lawsuit.
- When a corporation has its main headquarters in another state, but sends mail order catalogs in the state where they were handed the lawsuit.
- When a citizen of another state tries to sell a business to customers through phone calls or by publishing advertisements in the state where they were handed the lawsuit.
- When an Internet service provider who is a resident of another state does business with paid subscribers or takes online orders in the state where they were handed the lawsuit.
Conclusion
It is important to know your state’s policies on personal jurisdiction as it can come in handy anytime, even when you are simply driving a car. At the point when an individual wishes to challenge a personal jurisdiction, the person in question must take care in showing up in front of the court in the discussion state. In the event that the respondent shows up, the court will take this to be an inadequate accommodation to the personal jurisdiction of the court. The respondent defers the option to raise any jurisdictional imperfections.
