Personal Jurisdiction: Where Can I Sue the Defendant?

Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's power to bind a party—a person, a business, the government, or some other entity—with the court's ruling. In a criminal matter, it means the power to decide guilt or innocence and to penalize the guilty with prison or a fine. For civil (non-criminal) cases, personal jurisdiction means the power to find one party liable (legally responsible) for another's injuries and to order the payment of damages.

Personal jurisdiction is rooted in the constitutional requirement of due process of law, meaning fundamental fairness. To make sure that minimum due process requirements are satisfied, state courts typically are allowed to exercise personal jurisdiction only over a party who:

• is present within the state
• consents to appear in the state's courts, or
• has enough contacts with the state that requiring them to appear is fair and reasonable.

Present Within the State

Until the mid-20th century, personal jurisdiction rested mostly on the idea of territorial authority. In other words, a state's courts were allowed to exercise personal jurisdiction over anyone who could be found within the state's borders. But if a party was outside the state, its courts had no way to reach beyond the state line to assert authority over them.

So, for example, a person who lived in Illinois, or a business that was organized under Illinois law or had its main office in Illinois, could be sued in Illinois for any kind of legal claim. The same was true for a person only temporarily in the state. A person vacationing in Illinois, for instance, could be sued in Illinois state court, as long as they were served with the lawsuit while physically present in Illinois.

Today, presence within the state remains a valid basis for personal jurisdiction. The nearly universal rule is that state courts have personal jurisdiction over all people or businesses who are citizens of, or who do business in, that state. Visitors can still be tagged with personal jurisdiction, too, if they're handed the lawsuit papers while within the state's borders.

Consent and Submission to Authority

Parties are free to consent to a court's personal jurisdiction. Consent can be given in several ways, such as:

• by filing a case in court
• by contractually agreeing to submit the the court's authority, and
• by appearing before the court without objecting to personal jurisdiction.

Filing a Case in Court

This one should make sense. When a plaintiff (the party who files a civil lawsuit) files their case in court, they voluntarily submit to the court's authority and consent to personal jurisdiction. Were the rule otherwise, a losing plaintiff could turn around and challenge the court's jurisdiction, hopping from one state to the next until they found a friendly forum.

Contractual Agreement

Contracts are just elaborate and detailed promises by the parties to do a variety of things. One of the things they often do is require that the parties—in the event of a disagreement—file their lawsuits in a particular place (forum selection or venue) and submit to the personal jurisdiction of those courts. Within the limits of due process, courts routinely uphold these contract requirements.

Appearing Without Objection

When a defendant (a party who has been sued) appears in court and participates in the proceedings without objecting to personal jurisdiction, that defendant consents to the court's exercise of jurisdiction. In legal terms, the defendant has "waived" any objection to the court's authority, even if the waiver was inadvertent.

Enough Contacts With the State

Territorial limits worked pretty well as a personal jurisdiction measuring stick for much of the 19th century and into the early 20th century. Most people were born, lived their entire lives, and died in one or two states. Until long-distance communications and travel came along, most businesses also were primarily local affairs. There just wasn't much need for courts to assert personal jurisdiction over those outside the state.

Technological developments in the late 1800s and early 1900s changed all that. People and goods were able to travel long distances more easily. Businesses transformed from local to regional to national operations, meaning courts needed ways to force them to pay for injuries and damages they caused. The old system of territorial jurisdiction just couldn't keep up.

The Minimum Contacts Rule

A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision called International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), brought courts into the modern era. From now on, said the Court, state borders wouldn't necessarily limit the reach of a state's personal jurisdiction. Instead, for out-of-state parties, the question would be whether they had enough "minimum contacts" with the state that forcing them to appear in the state's courts would be fair and reasonable.

Keeping an in-state office or a warehouse, for instance, might be enough, as could be engaging in activities in a state that cause harm to others. Having employees or sales agents in a state, or selling goods and services within the state, also could be enough contacts.

In each case, courts look to the facts and circumstances and decide whether forcing a party to appear and defend is fundamentally fair and reasonable.

State Long-Arm Statutes

To implement the minimum contacts rule, states have enacted special personal jurisdiction rules called "long-arm statutes." As the name suggests, a long-arm statute is a law that gives the state's courts the power, in some situations, to force out-of-staters to appear and defend themselves. Some long-arm statutes list specific activities—the particular minimum contacts—that will suffice. Others are more vague.

Here are a couple of examples.

Colorado. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-124 (2025) says these actions (among others) are enough to allow Colorado courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-staters:

• transacting business within the state
• committing a tortious (harmful) act within the state
• ownership, possession, or use of Colorado real estate
• contracting to insure any person, property, or risk situated in Colorado
• maintaining a marital home, for purposes of divorce, child custody, and child support matters, and
• engaging in sexual intercourse in Colorado, for purposes of determining parentage and child support.

Florida. Under Fla. Stat. Ann. § 48.193 (2025), these are some of the acts that support personal jurisdiction over nonresidents:

• carrying on a business or having an office or agency in Florida
• committing a tortious act in Florida
• contracting to insure a person, property, or risk located in the state
• owning, holding, or possessing a mortgage on Florida real estate, and
• breaching a contract within the state.

While these long-arm statutes are typical, keep in mind that your state gets to make its own rules for jurisdiction over nonresidents, subject to the requirements of due process. Review your state's long-arm statute or better still, speak to an experienced lawyer.

Limits on Long-Arm Jurisdiction

While the minimum contacts rule and long-arm jurisdiction let state courts assert authority over those outside the state, there are important limits on this power.

Due process and fundamental fairness. The fact that a state has a long-arm statute doesn't mean that every attempt to use the statute is legal. In any case involving long-arm jurisdiction, state courts must answer these questions.

• Does the long-arm statute authorize the court to exercise personal jurisdiction?
• If the answer to the first question is yes, is exercising personal jurisdiction consistent with due process fairness rules and is it reasonable?

The lawsuit must relate to the contact. The fact that an out-of-stater has one (or more) contacts enumerated in a state's long-arm statute doesn't mean that they can be sued in the state for any legal claim. Long-arm jurisdiction is limited. As a rule, the subject matter of the lawsuit must relate to the contact supporting personal jurisdiction.

Suppose you want to sue nonresident Doe for breach of contract. The fact that Doe owns real estate in the state, and that real estate ownership is listed in the long-arm statute as a basis for jurisdiction, doesn't mean a state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Doe on your contract claim—unless that claim is related to Doe's in-state real estate.

Examples: Minimum Contacts and Long-Arm Jurisdiction

Sorting out minimum contacts and long-arm jurisdiction rules can be tricky. Here are some examples to illustrate the basic ideas.

Outside State and No Minimum Contacts

Debbie was a Texas citizen vacationing in Florida. While in Florida, Debbie bought what she was told were two brand new "fully loaded" computer systems at Kevin's Computer Shop. Debbie later learned that the computers were built with reused parts and wouldn't perform the tasks Kevin claimed. Kevin had no contacts with Texas.

Can Debbie sue Kevin in her home state of Texas? No. Texas courts have no personal jurisdiction over Kevin because:

• he's not present in the state
• no facts tell us Kevin consented to the jurisdiction of Texas courts, and
• he has no minimum contacts with Texas.

Let's change the facts a bit. Assume that Debbie bought the computers through Kevin's website. After collecting payment, he shipped the computers to Debbie at her home. Kevin sells computers to Texas residents several times a year.

If Debbie sues Kevin for breach of contract in Texas, will Kevin be subject to Texas's personal jurisdiction? Almost certainly, yes.

Kevin regularly does business in Texas. He entered into a contract with Debbie, a Texas resident, and shipped goods to her there. Kevin's lack of Texas residency won't save him. He has enough contacts with Texas that he'll have to answer Debbie's breach of contract lawsuit there.

Causing a Car Accident in the State

Dave, a Kansas resident, caused an auto accident while on a business trip to Ohio. Joan, an Ohio resident, was injured in the wreck. Several months later, after Dave returned to Kansas, Joan sued Dave in Ohio state court. You can assume that Ohio—like all states—has a long-arm statute that subjects out-of-state motorists to Ohio personal jurisdiction if they cause an accident in the state.

Can Ohio courts exercise jurisdiction over Dave? Yes.

Dave isn't an Ohio resident, but that doesn't matter. Dave caused a car accident in Ohio. Ohio's long-arm statute will apply, and courts everywhere have recognized that it's fair and reasonable to make an out-of-state driver answer for car accident damages they cause in-state.

Premises Liability

Blurfco, Inc., a corporation organized in Delaware and headquartered in New Jersey, has a retail store in Florida. Jim was leaving Blurfco's Florida store after buying some items. As he approached the front door, Jim slipped and fell on a wet substance. Jim sued Blurfco in Florida state court for his personal injuries.

Florida's long-arm statute (discussed above) allows its state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident when they:

• cause an injury in the state, or
• carry on a business or have an office or agency in the state.

Is Blurfco subject to Florida's jurisdiction? Yes.

Blurfco has a retail outlet in Florida where it carries on its business. In addition, Jim claims that Blurfco's negligent failure to maintain the floor caused him to suffer an injury. Both are sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction. Given Blurfco's extensive Florida contacts, it's fair and reasonable to demand that the company appear in Florida court to answer for Jim's injury.

Actual Cases

In each of these cases, a court found that an out-of-state resident had enough contacts with the state to support personal jurisdiction.

• A business headquartered in another state maintained a branch office, store, or warehouse in the state where the lawsuit was filed.
• A business with its headquarters in another state sent mail order catalogs into the state where suit was filed.
• A citizen of another state solicited business by making phone calls to customers or publishing advertisements in the state where suit was filed.

Get Help With Your Personal Jurisdiction Problem

While we've covered the basics of personal jurisdiction, truth be told, there's much more involved. Courts struggle every day over these issues, which often call for detailed, painstaking factual inquiries. Keep in mind that if you file suit in a state that can't exercise jurisdiction over the defendant, the likely outcome is that your case gets dismissed.

That can mean a lot of wasted time and money. An experienced lawyer knows the law and understands the factors courts weigh most heavily when reviewing jurisdiction questions. In the long run, you'll be better served by getting sound advice up front.