General Jurisdiction Question Forum

[The Gentleman]

Probably a dumb question:

Suppose that a state's long arm statute doesn't specifically authorize the assertion of general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Can the court still claim general jurisdiction over a defendant who meets the Perkins criteria? (substantial contacts that are continuous and systematic)

In other words, is a long arm statute required to assert general jurisdiction?

[ph14]

Probably a dumb question:

Suppose that a state's long arm statute doesn't specifically authorize the assertion of general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Can the court still claim general jurisdiction over a defendant who meets the Perkins criteria? (substantial contacts that are continuous and systematic)

In other words, is a long arm statute required to assert general jurisdiction?

Curious about this as well.

[spanktheduck]

Probably a dumb question:

Suppose that a state's long arm statute doesn't specifically authorize the assertion of general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Can the court still claim general jurisdiction over a defendant who meets the Perkins criteria? (substantial contacts that are continuous and systematic)

In other words, is a long arm statute required to assert general jurisdiction?

What exactly are you asking?

There are two issues here. A Constitutional issue and a state law issue.

Constitutionally, a state can have general jurisdiction over anything that does not run a foul of the Constitution. Whether or not a state has a statute giving itself general jurisdiction does not matter for the constitution.

As for the state law issue (which, I think is what you are asking), the answer for this turns on state law. Whether a state court could exercise general jurisdiction over an out-of-state claim that falls outside its long-arm statute would depend on whether the state's long-arm statute was exclusive (the court only has jurisdiction over the claims listed in the statute) or whether it was non-exclusive (the court can have jurisdiction over claims listed outside the statute), but this is a state law issue, not a constituional one. Note thought that some state's long arm statute basically just says: the state courts have generaly jurisdiction over anything that would be constitution.

[ph14]

Probably a dumb question:

Suppose that a state's long arm statute doesn't specifically authorize the assertion of general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Can the court still claim general jurisdiction over a defendant who meets the Perkins criteria? (substantial contacts that are continuous and systematic)

In other words, is a long arm statute required to assert general jurisdiction?

What exactly are you asking?

There are two issues here. A Constitutional issue and a state law issue.

Constitutionally, a state can have general jurisdiction over anything that does not run a foul of the Constitution. Whether or not a state has a statute giving itself general jurisdiction does not matter for the constitution.

As for the state law issue (which, I think is what you are asking), the answer for this turns on state law. Whether a state court could exercise general jurisdiction over an out-of-state claim that falls outside its long-arm statute would depend on whether the state's long-arm statute was exclusive (the court only has jurisdiction over the claims listed in the statute) or whether it was non-exclusive (the court can have jurisdiction over claims listed outside the statute), but this is a state law issue, not a constituional one. Note thought that some state's long arm statute basically just says: the state courts have generaly jurisdiction over anything that would be constitution.

So no matter what, a state needs a long arm statute to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident?

[spanktheduck]

Probably a dumb question:

Suppose that a state's long arm statute doesn't specifically authorize the assertion of general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Can the court still claim general jurisdiction over a defendant who meets the Perkins criteria? (substantial contacts that are continuous and systematic)

In other words, is a long arm statute required to assert general jurisdiction?

What exactly are you asking?

There are two issues here. A Constitutional issue and a state law issue.

Constitutionally, a state can have general jurisdiction over anything that does not run a foul of the Constitution. Whether or not a state has a statute giving itself general jurisdiction does not matter for the constitution.

As for the state law issue (which, I think is what you are asking), the answer for this turns on state law. Whether a state court could exercise general jurisdiction over an out-of-state claim that falls outside its long-arm statute would depend on whether the state's long-arm statute was exclusive (the court only has jurisdiction over the claims listed in the statute) or whether it was non-exclusive (the court can have jurisdiction over claims listed outside the statute), but this is a state law issue, not a constituional one. Note thought that some state's long arm statute basically just says: the state courts have generaly jurisdiction over anything that would be constitution.

So no matter what, a state needs a long arm statute to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident?

I am assuming you are asking about a claim that would fall under the long-arm statute area, b/c obviously if a nonresident commits a tort or something in the state, the longarm statute doesn't apply. As for the asnwer, I would imagine yes, but this is a state law question, that might vary state to state. I do not know. The constitution doesn't require then to have a long-arm statute to have jurisdiction. The consitution just limits the extent of their long arm stature.

[Void]

A long arm statute can impose greater restrictions upon a state than the constitutional standard, but can't give the state more leeway in exercising jurisdiction. A state without a long arm statute could exercise personal jurisdiction under the constitutional standard (minimum contact test).

[shoeshine]

Probably a dumb question:

Suppose that a state's long arm statute doesn't specifically authorize the assertion of general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Can the court still claim general jurisdiction over a defendant who meets the Perkins criteria? (substantial contacts that are continuous and systematic)

In other words, is a long arm statute required to assert general jurisdiction?

I know this is not what you are asking but I thought I would add.

I am not sure the Perkins criteria really stand as you list them here "substantial contacts that are continuous and systematic".

If you Shepardize Perkins you will find, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, that was decided over the summer. Although the case itself is not a great example of this the court mentions several times that General Jurisdiction in Perkins was only applicable because Ohio was the company's principal (albeit temporary) place of business.

They don't say it specifically but it seems like "substantial continuous and systematic contacts" aren't enough anymore.

IDK if you are being taught about that case but I thought I would mention it because our professor seemed up in arms that this may be the end of states indiscriminately using general jurisdiction.

[john@lestutor]

You only need a long arm statute if you are trying to reach out of the state you want so sue (forum state) in to serve someone. If you read all the cases, they will tell you that you need a long arm statute to serve a NON-RESIDENT D. Think about the ways you can get GENERAL PJ:

1)consent
2)waiver
3)in state service
4)domicile
5)substantial systematic & continuos contacts
6)state of incorporation

With all of these ways, the D is ALREADY in the state or present in some way or has waived or consented. That is why you will NOT need a LAS for general PJ. I hope that helped!

[john@lestutor]

A long arm statute can impose greater restrictions upon a state than the constitutional standard, but can't give the state more leeway in exercising jurisdiction. A state without a long arm statute could exercise personal jurisdiction under the constitutional standard (minimum contact test).

That is more for specific PJ

[Void]

A long arm statute can impose greater restrictions upon a state than the constitutional standard, but can't give the state more leeway in exercising jurisdiction. A state without a long arm statute could exercise personal jurisdiction under the constitutional standard (minimum contact test).

That is more for specific PJ

True. Should've paid more attention to the OP.