Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one U.S. state to assert in personam jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction over the person, or personal jurisdiction) over a defendant from another state. The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." ''International Shoe Co. v. Washington'', Court citation (1945). ==Consent and waiver== Minimum contacts can be established by consent where a party signs a contract with a forum selection clause, agreeing to litigation in a specified forum. See ''The Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co.'', Court citation (1972); ''Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute'', Court citation (1991). Because the need for minumum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can waive their right to object to the court hearing the case. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party who wishes to object to the court's assertion of personal jurisdiction must do so at the beginning of legal proceedings, or lose the ability to raise such an objection. Furthermore, a court may request that a party provide evidence (law) that its contacts do not rise to the level which would allow the court to have jursidiction. The Supreme Court has held that if a party refuses to comply with such a request, the court can deem them to have waived their right to object to jurisdiction. ''Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee'', Court citation (1982). ==Activities as a basis for jurisdiction== A party's activities within a state can provide the basis for that state to have jurisdiction over that party. The Supreme Court has held that the state can properly assert jurisdication based on a party's "purposeful availment of the benefits and protections" offered by a state. ===Presence=== The most basic example of this is presence - a party who receives service of process (formal notification that they are being sued) while physically present in a state is properly subject to personal jurisdiction in that state. ''Pennoyer v. Neff'', Court citation (1878). The current basis for the rule is uncertain. In ''Burnham v. Superior Court of California'', Court citation (1990), the Court unanimously agreed that this rule was still effective, but split as to the rationale. Justice Scalia wrote for four justices who felt that the rule should apply simply because it was a continuation of a longstanding tradition. Justice Brennan was wrote for four justices who felt that the rule should apply because the party was purposefully availing himself of the benefits of being in the state at that time. The ninth vote, by Justice Stevens, agreed that jurisdiction was proper, but did not endorse either the Scalia's or Brennan's test. ===Commercial activities=== Merely placing products in the "stream of commerce" is insufficient to provide minimum contacts with the states where the products end up. See ''World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson'', Court citation (1980); ''Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California'', Court citation (1987). ===Internet activities=== Courts have struggled with the internet as a source of minimum contacts, and have essentially settled on a test which examines the kind of use to which the internet is being put. Under this test, websites are divided into three categories: # ''passive'' websites, which just provide information, will almost never provide sufficient contacts for jurisdiction. Such a website will only provide a basis for jurisdiction if the website itself constitutes an intentional tort such as slander or defamation, ''and'' if it is directed at the jurisdiction in question; # ''interactive'' websites, which permit the exchange of information but not the immediate conduct of business, ''may'' be enough for jurisdiction, depending on the amount of interactivity, and the amount of contacts which the website owner has developed with the forum due to the presence of the website; # ''commercial'' websites which clearly do business over the internet, and through which customers in any location can immediately engage in business with the website owner are definitely enough for jurisdiction. ==Property as a basis for jurisdiction== The Supreme Court has held that the mere fact of ownership of property within a state is ''not'' sufficient to provide minimum contacts for a court to hear cases unrelated to that property. ''Shaffer v. Heitner'', Court citation (1977). However, the property alone provides a sufficient contact for a court having jurisdiction over that geographic area to adjudicate claims relating to the ownership of the property, or relating to injuries which occurred there. In that case, the jurisdiction exercised by the court is refered to in rem jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction over the thing), instead of ''in personam''jurisdiction. The U.S. Congress has enacted legislation which declares internet domain names to be property for the purposes of such jurisdiction. Therefore, when a webpage infringes a trademark, the owner of the trademark can sue in ''any'' jurisdiction where the webpage can be viewed - but only for the remedy of transfering ownership of the webpage to the trademark-holder. Civil procedure ==Notes== The word "''haled''" is an old-fashioned term used by courts, believed to be a variation of either hailed or hauled.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Minimum_contacts:
Minimum_contacts
Minimum contacts
Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one U.S. state to assert in personam jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction over the person, or personal jurisdiction) over a defendant from another state. The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." ''International Shoe Co. v. Washington'', Court citation (1945). ==Consent and waiver== Minimum contacts can be established by consent where a party signs a contract with a forum selection clause, agreeing to litigation in a specified forum. See ''The Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co.'', Court citation (1972); ''Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute'', Court citation (1991). Because the need for minumum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can waive their right to object to the court hearing the case. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party who wishes to object to the court's assertion of personal jurisdiction must do so at the beginning of legal proceedings, or lose the ability to raise such an objection. Furthermore, a court may request that a party provide evidence (law) that its contacts do not rise to the level which would allow the court to have jursidiction. The Supreme Court has held that if a party refuses to comply with such a request, the court can deem them to have waived their right to object to jurisdiction. ''Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee'', Court citation (1982). ==Activities as a basis for jurisdiction== A party's activities within a state can provide the basis for that state to have jurisdiction over that party. The Supreme Court has held that the state can properly assert jurisdication based on a party's "purposeful availment of the benefits and protections" offered by a state. ===Presence=== The most basic example of this is presence - a party who receives service of process (formal notification that they are being sued) while physically present in a state is properly subject to personal jurisdiction in that state. ''Pennoyer v. Neff'', Court citation (1878). The current basis for the rule is uncertain. In ''Burnham v. Superior Court of California'', Court citation (1990), the Court unanimously agreed that this rule was still effective, but split as to the rationale. Justice Scalia wrote for four justices who felt that the rule should apply simply because it was a continuation of a longstanding tradition. Justice Brennan was wrote for four justices who felt that the rule should apply because the party was purposefully availing himself of the benefits of being in the state at that time. The ninth vote, by Justice Stevens, agreed that jurisdiction was proper, but did not endorse either the Scalia's or Brennan's test. ===Commercial activities=== Merely placing products in the "stream of commerce" is insufficient to provide minimum contacts with the states where the products end up. See ''World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson'', Court citation (1980); ''Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California'', Court citation (1987). ===Internet activities=== Courts have struggled with the internet as a source of minimum contacts, and have essentially settled on a test which examines the kind of use to which the internet is being put. Under this test, websites are divided into three categories: # ''passive'' websites, which just provide information, will almost never provide sufficient contacts for jurisdiction. Such a website will only provide a basis for jurisdiction if the website itself constitutes an intentional tort such as slander or defamation, ''and'' if it is directed at the jurisdiction in question; # ''interactive'' websites, which permit the exchange of information but not the immediate conduct of business, ''may'' be enough for jurisdiction, depending on the amount of interactivity, and the amount of contacts which the website owner has developed with the forum due to the presence of the website; # ''commercial'' websites which clearly do business over the internet, and through which customers in any location can immediately engage in business with the website owner are definitely enough for jurisdiction. ==Property as a basis for jurisdiction== The Supreme Court has held that the mere fact of ownership of property within a state is ''not'' sufficient to provide minimum contacts for a court to hear cases unrelated to that property. ''Shaffer v. Heitner'', Court citation (1977). However, the property alone provides a sufficient contact for a court having jurisdiction over that geographic area to adjudicate claims relating to the ownership of the property, or relating to injuries which occurred there. In that case, the jurisdiction exercised by the court is refered to in rem jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction over the thing), instead of ''in personam''jurisdiction. The U.S. Congress has enacted legislation which declares internet domain names to be property for the purposes of such jurisdiction. Therefore, when a webpage infringes a trademark, the owner of the trademark can sue in ''any'' jurisdiction where the webpage can be viewed - but only for the remedy of transfering ownership of the webpage to the trademark-holder. Civil procedure ==Notes== The word "''haled''" is an old-fashioned term used by courts, believed to be a variation of either hailed or hauled.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Minimum_contacts:
Minimum_contacts
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
