I.    Personal Jurisdiction Overview

        A.     No Federal Statute governing Personal Jurisdiction

        B.     State "Long-Arm" Statutes

        C.     Common Law

            1.    Elements

                a.    Minimum Contacts - forum state
                    1.    Quantity of defendant contacts
                    2.    Nature and Quality of defendant contacts
                    3.    Connection between cause of action and defendant's contacts
                    4.    State’s interest in providing a forum
                    5.    Convenience of the parties

                b.     Maintenance of suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

                c.     Some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the
                        forum state thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.

            2.    Stream of Commerce

                a.    The foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way
                       into the forum state. Rather, it is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that
                       he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. ... The forum state does not exceed its powers
                       under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into
                       the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.

                b.     Examples
                    1.     Thompson - pornographic pictures created in CA but downloaded in TN
                    2.    Playmen - Pornographic site in Italy that can be accessed by U.S. residents

        D.    Sliding Scale

            1.    Active Sites

                a.    CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson(6th Cir. 1996), found that actively using the Internet to contract and solicit
                       business subjects the defendant to personal jurisdiction in the purchaser's state.

                b.    At this end exists the Internet commerce (or "E-commerce") merchant that subjects itself to personal jurisdiction
                       because it contracts and solicits business over the Internet

                c.    Examples
                    1.    "Wager net" - State v. Granite Gate Resorts, Inc.
                           Gambling in Minnesota
                    2.    "Vitalium"
                           Selling substance over the Internet - recruiting sales people

            2.    Passive Sites

                a.    Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King (2d Cir. 1997) refused to find personal jurisdiction in a situation involving a
                       passive, i.e., a purely informative and non-solicitous, Web site.

                b.    At this end is the party who operates the completely passive, informational Web site, and therefore does not
                       subject itself to personal jurisdiction.

                c.    Reluctance to grant worldwide jurisdiction simply by virtue of having a web site.

            3.    Middle Ground

                a.    Where the party does not necessarily contract over the Internet, but its Web site is also not purely informational.
                       Jurisdiction may or may not be appropriate in this instance, requiring a closer review of the facts to see if "plus
                       factors" exist that "indicate that the defendant purposefully (albeit electronically) directed his activity in a
                       substantial way to the forum state," thereby making jurisdiction proper.
                    1.    Ads in National Magazine not enough for jurisdiction
                    2.    Hearst v. Esqwire
                           Site to provide Law Mgt Advice - Esq.wire

                b.    Posting of 800 Numbers
                    1.    Simply lists a toll-free number, courts do not usually grant personal jurisdiction.
                    2.    However, if the purpose of the site and toll-free number is to solicit business, jurisdiction may be appropriate.

                c.    E-Mail
                    1.    Web sites that allow users to contact a business or individual via E-mail alone probably will not confer
                           jurisdiction.
                    2.    Routine use may suffice to find jurisdiction in the same way that frequently sending or receiving regular mail
                           from a state leads to jurisdiction.
                    3.    Volume
                           If the number of E-mails sent to a party is considerable, the court may find jurisdiction: one E-mail message is
                           probably not sufficient, but 15 may be.
                    4.    Example: Hall v. Laronde

                d.    AHits@
                    1.    Some courts consider the number of times a state's residents actually access a Web site. This is problematic.

                e.    Difficult for the Web site owner to know the origin of the person accessing the site
                    1.    Actual v. Potential Users
                        a.    Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., found jurisdiction proper because 131 Missourians had actually accessed
                               the defendant's Web site.
                        b.    Inset Systems granted jurisdiction partly because 10,000 users in Connecticut could potentially access
                               the site.