What You'll Learn

  • The Pennoyer power model
  • Why the model became inadequate
  • International Shoe
  • McGee and Hanson
  • What survived the transition
  • Exam synthesis

Educational information only; not legal advice. This article is a general study aid and should be checked against current authority and course materials.

Two cases organize the history of personal jurisdiction. Pennoyer v. Neff framed jurisdiction in territorial terms: people and property within the state’s borders were subject to its power. International Shoe Co. v. Washington adapted the doctrine to interstate commerce by asking whether the defendant had minimum contacts that made suit fair.

1. Pennoyer and Territorial Power

In Pennoyer v. Neff, an Oregon court entered a personal judgment against a nonresident who had not been personally served in Oregon and whose property was not attached when the original action began. The Supreme Court treated the judgment as invalid.

The traditional framework emphasized recognized territorial hooks:

personal service on an individual physically present in the state; domicile recognized as a basis of state authority; consent or voluntary appearance; and property brought under the court’s control at the outset for a property-based action.

Key Takeaway

A state could not simply project its judicial power beyond its borders and bind a nonresident through publication in an ordinary personal action. Territory, attachment, and formal service did the work.

2. Why Territorial Formalism Became Too Rigid

National commerce changed the practical landscape. Corporations could conduct extensive business in a state without maintaining a traditional physical presence. Sales agents traveled, contracts crossed borders, and injuries arose from interstate activity. A rule tied only to physical presence did not fit the modern economy.

3. International Shoe and Minimum Contacts

International Shoe involved a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business outside Washington. Salespeople solicited orders in Washington, and the state sought unemployment-compensation contributions. The Court held that due process permits jurisdiction when the defendant has certain minimum contacts such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Quality and Nature

Contacts are not counted mechanically. Courts examine what the defendant did, why it did it, and how the forum benefited or regulated the activity.

Connection to the Claim

Contacts that give rise to the lawsuit are more powerful than unrelated activity. The relationship between contacts and claim became central to specific jurisdiction.

The company’s systematic solicitation and the connection between that activity and the state’s claim made jurisdiction reasonable. The decision replaced a strict presence fiction with a functional assessment of the defendant’s forum relationship.

4. McGee and Hanson Refine the Doctrine

McGee: one meaningful contact may be enough

In McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., the Court upheld California jurisdiction based on a single insurance relationship deliberately continued with a California resident. The contact was closely tied to the claim, and California had a strong interest in providing a forum.

Hanson: the plaintiff cannot manufacture the contact

Hanson v. Denckla supplied the limiting principle: there must be an act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of conducting activities within the forum, invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. The unilateral activity of another person is not enough.

Exam Tip

Read McGee and Hanson together. A single contact can support jurisdiction when it is deliberate and claim-connected; a large amount of plaintiff-created forum activity cannot substitute for the defendant’s purposeful connection.

5. What Survived the Transition

International Shoe did not erase every traditional ground. Domicile remains a basis for jurisdiction over individuals. Consent remains valid. In Burnham, the Court upheld personal service on an individual voluntarily present in the forum. Property-based jurisdiction, however, was later brought under the minimum-contacts framework in Shaffer v. Heitner.

Pennoyer

Territory, presence, consent, and attachment. →

International Shoe

Minimum contacts plus fairness. →

Modern Doctrine

General, specific, traditional, and property-based paths.

6. How to Write the History on an Exam

Do not spend a page narrating doctrine when a problem asks for application. Use history to explain why the modern test applies:

  1. Identify any traditional basis, such as domicile, consent, or tag service. 2. If none applies, identify general or specific jurisdiction. 3. For specific jurisdiction, ask whether the defendant deliberately formed contacts, whether the claim is linked to them, and whether jurisdiction is reasonable. 4. Do not treat mere foreseeability or the plaintiff’s unilateral conduct as purposeful availment.

Common Mistake

Avoid saying International Shoe simply “overruled Pennoyer.” The better statement is that it transformed the analysis for absent defendants while traditional bases continued to matter and property jurisdiction was later revised by Shaffer.

Primary Authorities

  • Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878).

  • International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

  • McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957).

  • Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958).

  • Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977); Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990).

Exam-ready conclusion

Pennoyer asked whether the defendant or property was territorially within the state’s power. International Shoe asked whether the defendant’s relationship with the state made jurisdiction legitimate. Modern analysis uses both history and relationship, depending on the asserted basis.