Here’s another way of viewing the minimum contacts test: consider the quality and nature of contacts, and then ask whether you can have specific and/or general jurisdiction.
Generally, the contacts must be extremely high to justify general “all purpose” jurisdiction, whereas a single contact might be enough for specific “case-specific” jurisdiction.
The table starts with no contacts at the bottom, then moves to single contacts, and at the top, has highly pervasive contacts.
| Nature of defendant’s contacts with forum state | Types of PJ possible under the minimum contacts test |
| Systematic & continuous and “essentially at home” | Specific jurisdiction is ok if the contacts give rise to P’s claim and the exercise of PJ is reasonable (Int’l Shoe Box B, subject to three-part specific jurisdiction analysis).
General jurisdiction is ok. See Int’l Shoe Box D and general jurisdiction handout. No need to analyze giving rise or reasonableness. |
| Systematic & continuous contacts but not “essentially at home” levels | Probably specific jurisdiction if the contacts give rise to P’s claim and the exercise of PJ is reasonable (See Int’l Shoe Box B, subject to three-part specific jurisdiction analysis).
No general jurisdiction, not enough contacts. (See Int’l Shoe Box D and general jurisdiction handout). |
| Single or fortuitous contacts | Maybe specific jurisdiction if the contacts are enough, and they give rise to P’s claim, and PJ is reasonable (See Int’l Shoe Box A, subject to three-part specific jurisdiction analysis).
No general jurisdiction, not enough contacts. (See Int’l Shoe Box C and general jurisdiction handout). |
| No contacts | No PJ at all unless a traditional basis exists |