So I am reviewing for my civ pro final and I am still a bit confused about long arm statutes and when they are needed to establish PJ over non-residents. My professor says that even when there is minimum contacts and fairness/reasonableness satisfied you still need to see if the state's long arm statutes would reach the D, is this true? Also, my professor said that even when non-resident D is in the state voluntarily (i.e. like Burnham) and he has been served, you still have to consider the long arm statute. Is this correct? Thanks.
The deal with long-arm statutes is that states can reach to the full extent of due process but they dont have to. In other words, a state could require a greater degree of contacts to justify hauling a party into court than is required by due process.
The second statement is correct. Again, a state long arm statute could say that mere presence is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Instead, the state could require something more, like that the action occurred in the state or that the party conducts business within the state, etc.
The following is an excerpt from my civ pro outline on long arm statutes:
A. Jurisdiction Statutes
a. Falls within terms of state statute
i. Gary defined tortious as where injury occurs (broad)
ii. Feathers defined tortious as where act took place (narrow)
1. Gust claim arising out of transaction for truck held not covered by long-arm statute b/c D did not conduct business in state nor was tortious act committed in state
b. Jurisdiction constitutional D establish significant relationship with forum
i. Domicile, in-state presence, continuous and substantial business in the state, consent, or minimum contacts with the state that gave rise to the claim in suit