Personal Jurisdiction

Running head: PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Personal Jurisdiction
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

2PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Issue
The issue is to determine whether the state of Illinois is likely to have a personal
jurisdiction over Mike.
Rule
Various factors and test are required for determining the personal jurisdiction of a court.
In the USA personal jurisdiction can be of three types: In Personam jurisdiction, In Rem
jurisdiction and Quasi In Rem jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers to the power of the court
for bringing people into its adjudicative ambit for enforcing a judgement upon such person. For
determining personal jurisdiction, the courts make use of different factors and tests, differing
from state to state. The tests and the factors include:
a) Territoriality:
The test of territoriality states that personal jurisdiction can only be exercised if the defendant
it is situated in the place where the suit has been filed. Therefore the defendant is to be served as
per the legal procedure of the state where he has been seized.
b) Contacts test
The Supreme Court of the United State has refined this test and has held that it is unfair for a
court to assess a party who has negligible contact with the state which holds the jurisdiction
office case. The case of International Shoe company v Washington 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) in
1945 stated that the provisions of jurisdiction do not wish to affect the traditional notions of
sustainable justice and fair play.
c) General and Specific jurisdiction

3PERSONAL JURISDICTION
General jurisdiction test follows the principle that anyone can be sued by any Court
irrespective of the fact that whether the defendant has any contact with the prosecuting state.
Specific jurisdiction refers to the contacts of the defendant with the forum state being limited.
It is stated that the defendant avails the privilege of his conduct in the forum state on purpose,
thereby enjoying the benefits and the protection of the laws of such forum state.
d) Overall jurisdiction factor
The overall reasonableness jurisdiction factor claims that a traditional notion of fair play and
restoration of Justice should be a considering factors along with su other aspects like burden of
the defendant for defending the specific forum, the specific forum’s interest on the case and the
interest of the plaintiff pertaining to the relief.
e) Stream of commerce
The stream of commerce factor is mainly used in case of product liability where personal
jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of a company’s delivery of products into the stream of
commerce, expecting that consumers will purchase such products streamed in a different forum
and in such case the action of the defendant must be voluntary towards such forum. In
Worldwide Volkswagen corporation v Woodson 444 U.S. 286 (1980) the Supreme Court of the
United States held that when products have been brought from one jurisdiction to another by way
of the implied contract between the consumer and plaintiff, then such contact of the
consumer/defendant with the forum in question cannot be considered as voluntary or directed on
purpose.