09-1343 J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., v. Nicastro

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Personal jurisdiction

A state lacks personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that did not purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in that state.

Due process protects the defendant’s right not to be coerced except by lawful judicial power. A court may subject a defendant to judgment only when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the sovereign “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316. Freeform fundamental fairness notions divorced from traditional practice cannot transform a judgment rendered without authority into law. As a general rule, the sovereign’s exercise of power requires some act by which the defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253. In cases like this one, it is the defendant’s purposeful availment that makes jurisdiction consistent with “fair play and substantial justice” notions. No “stream-of-commerce” doctrine can displace that general rule for products-liability cases.
987 A. 2d 575, reversed.

09-1343 J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., v. Nicastro

Kennedy, J.; Breyer, J., concurring; Ginsburg, J., dissenting.

Full Text