Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
Respondents sued Petitioners for libel in California. Petitioners argued California did not have personal jurisdiction.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Consistent with due process, a forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the effects of the defendant’s actions are intentionally targeted at and felt within the forum state.
She and her husband brought this suit against the National Enquirer, Inc., its local distributing company, and petitioners for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm.
View Full Point of Law
Shirley Jones and her husband (Respondents) brought suit for libel in California against the Florida corporation, the Enquirer, its editor, and the writer of the article (Petitioners). Petitioners filed a motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that they did not have sufficient contacts with the forum state.
Issue.
Can California exercise personal jurisdiction over the Petitioners?
Held.
Yes, California may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the Petitioners. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Discussion.
The Court determined that California had personal jurisdiction over the Petitioners based on the effects of Petitioners’ conduct in California. Respondents brought suit concerning an allegedly libelous story that may have been written and published in Florida, but sources, the focus of the story, and the harmful effects of the story were all targeted at and arose out of California.