Case Cub Logo

Personal Jurisdiction Analyzer

Walk through the constitutional analysis — traditional bases → general → specific jurisdiction — with every doctrine and case cited at each step.

Step 1

Is the defendant physically present in the forum state when served, OR has the defendant consented to jurisdiction (e.g. forum-selection clause, general appearance)?

Why this matters:Burnham v. Superior Court (1990) — physical presence at time of service is itself a sufficient traditional basis for general jurisdiction, even for one-off visits.

The personal jurisdiction analysis, in order

Personal jurisdiction is the most heavily-tested doctrine in 1L civ pro, and the case law has built up over 75 years into a layer cake. The structure of the analysis matters: working through it out of order is how you lose points on exams.

Step 1: Traditional bases

Start here. Three traditional bases independently establish jurisdiction without any minimum-contacts analysis: physical presence at service (Burnham v. Superior Court), consent (express via forum-selection clause or implied via general appearance), and domicile for individuals. If any of these apply, you're done — jurisdiction exists.

Step 2: General (all-purpose) jurisdiction

If no traditional basis applies, ask whether the defendant is "essentially at home" in the forum. Post-Daimler v. Bauman (2014), this is a narrow inquiry. For corporations, general jurisdiction is essentially limited to the state of incorporation and the state of principal place of business (the Hertz nerve-center test). The pre-Daimler rule that "continuous and systematic" contacts could establish general jurisdiction is functionally dead.

Step 3: Specific (case-linked) jurisdiction

If neither traditional bases nor general jurisdiction work, you land on specific jurisdiction. The modern test has three prongs:

  1. Relatedness — the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum contacts (Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, 2017).
  2. Purposeful availment — the defendant must have deliberately reached into the forum, not merely foreseen that its product might end up there (World-Wide Volkswagen, Asahi, J. McIntyre v. Nicastro).
  3. Reasonableness — exercising jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice (Asahi factors: burden on defendant, forum's interest, plaintiff's interest, judicial efficiency, shared substantive policy).

What this analyzer does and does not handle

The wizard above handles the constitutional analysis: traditional bases → general → specific, with the leading cases cited at each step. It does not handle the long-arm-statute step that precedes the constitutional analysis (most state long-arm statutes extend to constitutional limits, so this often collapses, but a few states have narrower statutes — California is the textbook example of a long-arm-equals-due-process state). It also does not analyze in rem or quasi-in-rem jurisdiction, both of which have their own (mostly defunct) doctrines.