Personal Jurisdiction Practice Test 2025 – The Comprehensive All-in-One Guide to Master the Exam!

The case that established that merely having a business relationship does not always satisfy personal jurisdiction requirements is Hanson v. Denckla. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the importance of "minimum contacts" in determining whether a state can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. The Court emphasized that a mere abstract connection, such as a business relationship, is insufficient; there must be some form of meaningful contact or connection with the forum state.

In Hanson v. Denckla, the court evaluated the interactions between the decedent and the state of Florida, concluding that the defendant had not established sufficient contacts to justify Florida exercising jurisdiction over its parties. This case set a precedent highlighting that a business relationship alone does not fulfill the requirement for personal jurisdiction unless there exist additional factors indicating purposeful availment by the defendant in the forum state.

Other cases in the choices illustrate different aspects of personal jurisdiction. For example, Pennoyer v. Neff addressed the territorial limits of jurisdiction based on the defendant's presence. Shaffer v. Heitner further expanded on the necessity of demonstrating minimum contacts. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. involved specific jurisdiction based on the defendant's acts directed towards the state. However, it is Hanson v. Denckla