specific jurisdiction essay

What are General and Specific Personal Jurisdiction?

by uslawessentials | Jul 7, 2017 | Civil Procedure , video , What does . . . mean? | 0 comments

General and specific personal jurisdiction are two types of personal jurisdiction in the United States.  Below we’ll discuss personal jurisdiction generally, how personal jurisdiction is different from subject matter jurisdiction, and the difference between general and specific personal jurisdiction.  You can also find a short video with a quiz.

What is Personal Jurisdiction?

Personal jurisdiction means power over a party.  There are 50 different states in the United States.  If a plaintiff wants to sue a defendant , she will need to sue in a state that has power over the defendant.  If we say a state has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, we mean that courts located in that state have power over the defendant.

For example, if Patty sues David in New York, we need to know whether a New York court has the authority to cause David to appear in court and to enter a judgment against him.   If David is from another state and has no connection with New York, the New York court probably lacks personal jurisdiction over David.  Patty would have to sue him in a different state.

How is Personal Jurisdiction Different From Subject Matter Jurisdiction?

Personal jurisdiction is different from subject matter jurisdiction because subject matter jurisdiction tells us whether a court has the power to hear a certain type of case.  For example, if parties are diverse , and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, then a federal court should have jurisdiction over the case.

But subject matter jurisdiction does not tell us whether a federal court in New York has power over the parties in the case.  If there is no personal jurisdiction in New York over the defendant, then the plaintiff must choose a court in a different state that does have personal jurisdiction.

General Jurisdiction vs. Specific Jurisdiction

US courts distinguish between general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction.

General jurisdiction means a state where a person can be sued for any claim, regardless of where the actions underlying the claim occurred.  A court may assert general personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is “home”.

For example, if David permanently resides in Pennsylvania, then Pennsylvania will have personal jurisdiction over David for actions he commits anywhere.  Pennsylvania courts may assert general personal jurisdiction over David.

If David commits a tort in New York, and the plaintiff chooses to sue David in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania court will have power over David.   The plaintiff can always sue David in Pennsylvania because David is at home in Pennsylvania and the court has general jurisdiction over him.   Of course, there might be reasons to transfer the case to New York, but that is a different topic.

General  Personal Jurisdiction Over Business Entities and Natural Persons

Rules for general jurisdiction over natural persons and business entities are different.  A natural person is home in his state of permanent residence.  That is, if a person has a residence in a state and intends to permanently live there, then that state will have general personal jurisdiction over him.

Courts treat natural persons as having one – – and only one – – state of permanent residence.   For example, if Debbie’s house is in Florida, and she has a Florida driver’s license, courts will probably consider Florida her state of permanent residence.  Even if Debbie studies in New York a few months a year, probably Florida alone will have general personal jurisdiction over her.

An incorporated business entity is at home in its state of incorporation and the place of its principal place of business – – usually its headquarters.  For example, if a company is incorporated in Delaware (Delaware is  a favorite place to form a company) and its headquarters is in California, both Delaware and California will have general jurisdiction over the company.

Other business entities and organizations are subject to different rules.  For partnerships and Limited Liability Companies, the entities will be at home in every state in which a partner or member lives.  For example, if a partnership has ten partners in ten different states, the partnership will be subject to general jurisdiction in each state.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction Requires a Connection Between the Lawsuit and Defendant’s Contacts with the State

Specific jurisdiction means personal jurisdiction based on a defendant’s contacts with the state.  For example, if David is a resident of Pennsylvania, New York cannot have general jurisdiction over him.  A plaintiff could not sue David based on David’s activities that have no connection with New York.

However, if David commits a tortious act in New York, then a plaintiff injured by David in New York should be able to demonstrate that a New York court has specific jurisdiction over David,  based on his tortious conduct in New York.  The plaintiff could sue David in New York because a New York court will have specific personal jurisdiction over David, based on his contacts with the state, and the connection between those contacts and the lawsuit.

Below is a video concerning specific personal jurisdiction based on a Supreme Court case decided in 2021:

Are you feeling lost in law school?

Practical and Effective Help

• All topics (contracts, torts, civ pro, etc.) 
•   Legal writing
• Law school exams, bar exam, essay writing

Get a Civ Pro Quiz Ebook!

101 Civ Pro Questions and Explanations

• Term: Personal Jurisdiction
• Term: Child Custody Jurisdiction
• Term: Natural Person
• Term: Incorporation
• Term: Subject to
• Term: Plaintiff
• Term: Defendant

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

specific jurisdiction

Primary tabs.

Specific jurisdiction is a form of minimum contacts that enables a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant in that state without violating due process because of the extent of the defendants’ activities within that state. Compare: general jurisdiction . 

In International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) , the U.S. Supreme Court required that, in order for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporate defendant, the state must have general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction over the defendant. 

In McGee v. International Life Insurance, 355 U.S. 220 (1957) , the Supreme Court held that a state could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation defendant where the state had specific jurisdiction over the defendant, even though the state lacked general jurisdiction. There, an individual purchased a life insurance policy in California from an Arizona insurance company. Then, a Texas company bought the Arizona insurance company. The Texas company conducted no operations in California. When the beneficiaries of the policy sued the Texas company, who challenged that the beneficiaries were not entitled to anything under the policy, in California state court, the U.S. Supreme Court held that California had personal jurisdiction over the Texas company. California lacked general jurisdiction over the Texas insurance company, i.e. the corporate defendant, because they had no continuous and systematic operations in California. Since the claim arose directly from the Texas company’s activities though, namely providing a policy to someone in California, California had specific jurisdiction which allowed them to exercise personal jurisdiction. 

Subsequent Supreme Court cases have limited McGee’s holding, and thus the extent to which courts can exercise personal jurisdiction based on specific jurisdiction alone. In 2017, in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court , the Supreme Court heightened the requirement for how closely the corporate defendant’s activities in the state and the activities from which the claim arose must relate. The Court dispelled any notion that specific jurisdiction is a sliding scale between how extensive a corporate defendant’s activities in the state are and how closely the claim arose from those activities. Instead, the Court clarified that there must be a specific connection between the claims and the corporate defendant’s activities in that state. Specifically, there, plaintiffs from around the country sued Bristol-Myers Squibb, a large pharmaceutical company, in California because Bristol-Myers Squibb conducted extensive research and business there. The Court found that California did not have personal jurisdiction in this case, however, since the plaintiffs’ claims did not directly arise from Bristol-Myers Squibb’s California activities.

[Last updated in December of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• THE LEGAL PROCESS
• civil procedure
• courts and procedure
• legal education and practice
• wex articles
• wex definitions

• Features Essay

A General Look at Specific Jurisdiction

March 23, 2017

By Lea Brilmayer

“Success, in domestic and international litigation alike, depends on finding a court with jurisdiction over the defendant. American constitutional law, which governs assertion of jurisdiction even over international defendants in American courts, has developed the subject of personal jurisdiction into a fine art. It’s all a question of whether ‘minimum contacts’ exist between the defendant and the forum, and whether the assertion of jurisdiction satisfies a standard of ‘fair play and substantial justice.’”

You may also like...

MLATS and the Trusted Nation Club: The Proper Cost of Membership

September 7, 2016

Unilateral Sanctions Under International Human Rights Law: Correcting the Record

September 6, 2023

Indian Executive’s Pro-Arbitration Power Move Sanctioned by Parliament: Transnational Ideals Versus National Reality

September 2, 2016

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Search form

• Browse All Lessons
• First Year 1L
• Upper Level 2L & 3L
• Subject Outlines
• New Lessons
• Updated Lessons
• Removed Lessons
• Browse All Books
• About our Books
• Print Books
• Permissions
• Become an Author
• Coming Soon
• Browse All Resources
• CALI Podcasts
• CALI Forums
• Online Teaching Tips & Techniques
• Webinars & Online Courses
• The 2024 CALI® Summer Challenge
• Awards Listing
• About Awards
• CALIcon - CALI Conference for Law School Computing
• Event Calendar
• Register for the CALI Tech Briefing
• CALI Spotlight Blog
• Board of Directors
• Help & FAQs

Introduction to Specific Jurisdiction

This lesson is designed as an overview of specific jurisdiction. While we will review some of the most important precedents and their implications, our primary focus will be to put the doctrine in context and identify some of its major constitutional dimensions. Other lessons will explore more detailed aspects of the doctrine.

Learning Outcomes

On completion of the lesson, the student will be able to:

• Explain where specific jurisdiction fits into the requirement that courts need authority to adjudicate.
• Describe the relationship of specific jurisdiction to general jurisdiction.
• Distinguish the different threads of due process that constrain the exercise of specific jurisdiction, and the concepts of purposeful availment, targetting and relatedness.

Lesson Completion Time

Cali topics.

• 1L - First Year Lesson Topics
• Civil Procedure

Runs in past 30 days

Lesson authors.

More like this

• Transient Jurisdiction, General Jurisdiction, and Domicile
• Removal and Remand: Litigation Strategy
• Forum Non Conveniens and Transfer of Venue
• Removal and Remand: The Basics

Civil Procedure I

Personal jurisdiction.

• Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Civil Procedure

Pennoyer v. neff, personal jurisdiction chart, step 1: assessing personal jurisdiction.

To establish that personal jurisdiction is proper, one must assess the Long-Arm Statute of the State or Federal Court first, and then move to assessing Due Process under the Constitution. Remember that personal jurisdiction is a waivable right.

I will address these elements: Consent, Tag, Domicile, General Jurisdiction, Specific Jurisdiction, In rem jurisdiction for both the Long-Arm Statute and the Due Process Clause. 

Lecture on Personal Jurisdiction

Use this lecture series for additional help with PJ. Remember that this libguide is created to help you find the answers yourself and to fill in the gaps. Make sure that you have created your own outline and attack plan with the steps that make sense to you. Also, make sure that you do not forget to first look at the call of the question. Knowing all of the information becomes useless if you do not apply the information to the question asked, and also if you cannot apply the information to the facts. Check the cases with your cases and case book from class and make sure to use them in the rules. Civil Procedure is one class in which both the rule book and case law have significantly developed the subject. 

PJ Constitutional Analysis

Constitutional Analysis:

Sources of personal Jurisdiction:

 1. PRESENCE - if the defendant is served with process within the state, then jurisdiction is proper.  Burnham v. Superior Court of California

• Scalia: validation is its pedigree
• Brennan: You should apply the international shoe test, but presence in the state may provide the necessary  minimum contacts . 
• Note that if the defendant was in the state involuntarily, then probably not sufficient for PJ. 

2.  CONSENT - there are 3 main ways to consent (if yes, then PJ)

• Appointing an agent for service of process in the state 
• conduct in the litigation (filing a general appearance or just showing up
• forum selection clause :  The Bremen v. Zapata Off-shore co.; Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute

3.  DOMICILE-  for a person or a corporation, PJ is proper when  they are domiciled no matter the cause of action. For a coporporation: place of incorporation and principle place of business are appropriate for domicile. 

IF none of these work, apply the  International Shoe test, which requires "minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Federal Long Arm Statute Specifics

PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL COURTS

Rule 4 (k)(1) -federal long arm

a. Absent special litigation, a federal court has personal jurisdiction only if a state court in which the federal courts sit would have personal jurisdiction

b. The 100 mile "bulge" rule(b)-when you're within 100 miles of a federal court house, jurisdiction is proper regardless of state boundaries. Designed to simplify complete resolution of disputes.

c) when Congress permits-congress has authorized nationwide service of process in areas such as antitrust, securities, bankruptcy, and interpleader-this permits defendant to be served anywhere in the United States and provides personal jurisdiction regardless of whether there would have been jurisdiction in any state court

d) defendant's properly sued in local courts of that state,

e) 100-mile bulge joinder rule-if I sue the Defendant and the Defendant says "hey there's      someone else responsible." The defendant can bring them into the lawsuit if they are within     100 miles of the courthouse.

Rule 4 (k) (2) -federal long arm

Provides for jurisdiction in any federal court for a claim that is based on federal law and where

a) there is no state which would have personal jurisdiction AND

b) jurisdiction is constitutional and lawful under US: due process

c) what is not subject to any one state's jurisdiction, but

d) has sufficient contacts with the U.S. and

e) the claim is federal

Keeton v. Hustler -Keeton was citizen of NY with little connection to NH. She sued Hustler in NH, because statute of limitations had run up everywhere else. Supreme Court upheld personal jurisdiction for injury suffered over alleged defamatory in NH and in all other states where the mag was distributed. Supreme said NH has "substantial interest in cooperating with other states…to provide a forum for efficiently litigating."

Plaintiff doesn’t have to have minimum contacts with the forum state only defendant does.

Calder v. Jones Court upheld jurisdiction in CA against editor and writer who were FL citizens over an alleged defamatory article about CA citizen. Article was drawn from CA sources and brunt of harm to plaintiff (emotional distress/professional injury) was in CA. CA is proper jurisdiction based on effects of FL conduct. Defendants knew magazine would have big impact in CA, biggest circulation and plaintiff worked in CA. Defendants "reasonably anticipated being hailed into court to answer about article. Purposeful Availment- article about a citizen of CA and her character, where she works and lives, so the defendants were reaching into the state.

Limits to the State

14th amendment due process clause-state

5th amendment due process clause -federal

Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet

Revell v. Lidov (2002) -Lidov wrote an article alleging that plaintiff Revell, a former FBI director helped perform a government cover-up about PanAm 103 flight that exploded over Scotland in 1987- article specifically pointed about Revell and was posted on Columbia University's website. Revell-resident of TX, sued in TX courts. Columbia University-principal offices in NYC and Lidov-MA resident and didn’t know Revell lived in TX so it wasn’t intentional aim at TX. Issue: Can TX have jurisdiction over a person whose only contacts with the forum are over a public website?

Rule: Not enough to use Calder

Article had no reference to TX, no reference to Revell's activities in TX, not directed at TX readers, TX was not focal point of harm suffered. Plaintiff's residence in TX not enough

Defendant knew that article would cause harm but it was not directed at TX.

Zippo Mfg. Co v. Zippos Dot Com (1997) PA trial court-sliding scale developed for Internet

"sliding scale"-one end is passive, the other end is interactive

Passive website-basically you can only look at-can't have personal jurisdiction because it's not purposefully availing itself

Interactive website- you can have an exchange and connect with people-personal jurisdiction because there is interaction and availment

Toys R Us, Inc v. Step Two, SA (2003)-Zippo is outdated by 2003. All websites are interactive under Zippo rules. There must be "something more" like "intentionality" to show that the non-resident is directing its activity to forum residents via 1) related internet contacts related to dispute or 2) non-internet contacts related to dispute (like serial business trips to forum) 

Step 2: State Long-Arm Statutes

In analyzing personal jurisdiction, a person may be found to be under the authority to bring a lawsuit in the state through the long-arm statute of the state. 

How to Satisfy the Long-Arm Statute: (State of South Carolina):

1. Consent - (waived)

2. Tag : S.C. §36-2-805: “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any other basis authorized by law.”

3. Domicile/ Tag without Tag : S.C. §36-2-802: “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person domiciled in, organized under the laws of, doing business, or maintaining his or its principal place of business in, this state as a cause of action.”

4. General Jurisdiction : (Coggeshall v. Reproductive Endocrine Associates of Charlotte)

Doing business in the state can constitute jurisdiction in the state. Activities and injuries do not have to specifically arise from the state under General Jurisdiction. A company that holds contacts in the state and is said to have an “enduring relationship” based on the facts of the case would have general jurisdiction. There is no formula that specifically authorizes doing business but enduring relationship requires that its contacts are continuous, systematic, and substantial. (From Helicopteros and International Shoe). 

Under Coggeshall, the company was not subject to general jurisdiction because services were not rendered in South Carolina. It would be unfair to permit a lawsuit in a distant jurisdiction, where a plaintiff may carry consequences, but the act was done in another jurisdiction.

South Carolina Fairness Prong: The SC fairness prong (comparable to Justice White's 5): (1) duration of activity of non-resident in the state, (2) character and circumstances of commission of non-residents acts, (3) inconvenience resulting to the parties from conferring or not conferring jurisdiction over the nonresident, (4) state's interest in exercising jurisdiction.

Sumatra 4: (1) Embracing Stream of Commerce Theory in S.C. (2) Personal Jurisdiction follows the product and presence is not required. 

5. Specific Jurisdiction : S.C. 36-2-803 where personal jurisdiction is based on conduct. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent to a cause of action arising from business transactions, tortious injury in the state, entry into contract in the state. Also, did the company intent to avail itself to the benefits and protections of the state by its actions? ALSO the 8 Categories for Specific Jurisdiction SC §803. 

In South Carolina, there are eight categories for which a person can be held under specific jurisdiction. (1) by transacting business in the state, (2) by contracting supplies or service in the state, (3) by committing a tortious act in the state, (4) by causing death or tort in the state from outside of the state, (5) by contracting to insure a person in the state, (6) by becoming a party to a contract that is to be performed in the state, (7) by producing or manufacturing goods consumed in the state, (8) by using or possessing real property in the state. 

6. In rem : does the defendant have property in the state?

For Federal Cases: In addition, according to the 100 Mile Bulge Rule, jurisdiction is proper if the defendant could be subject to the jurisdiction of a general court in the same state in which the district court is located.

Step 3: Federal Due Process Analysis

1.    Consent - Under Rule 12- defendant must waive challenge to response immediately.

-       A person must appoint an agent for service of process in a state in which he or she does business. This is so that the court can give that person notice

-       General appearance or just showing up can constitute consent.

-       Presence Test- voluntary consent because of significant presence in the state. Tag can establish consent.

2. Tag : Burnham case: presence in the state enables that person to be tagged in the state with notice of a lawsuit.

3. Domicile/ Tag without Tag :  Millican case: when your home is in the state, you can always be served at home. For a corporation, according to Hertz v. Friend a corporation can be tagged at principal place of business established by nerve center test or by place of incorporation. A corporation’s domicile is in both places.  Domicile in the state is sufficient to bring an absent defendant within reach of state’s jurisdiction. The court has concluded that with modern advancements, it is reasonable to expect the defendant to travel.

4. General Jurisdiction :

- when to use: when the contacts in the state are unrelated to the cause of action.

- So continuous and systematic that it renders the defendant essentially at home. (Goodyear Case)

- Doing substantial business within the state (Perkins Case)

- It's only fair test (International Shoe and tested in Shaffer v. Heitner with stocks not qualifying as In rem). Usually if there is property in the state, then there are sufficient minimum contacts.

The court is clear that a defendant must be essentially at home. (Helicopteros case: when there are not enough continuous and systematic contacts to render a party essentially at home.)

-Why General Jurisdiction? Ensures that there is always somewhere to sue a plaintiff.

5. Specific Jurisdiction : Test for minimum contacts, reasonableness, arising under test, and purposeful availment

- A lawsuit must not offend traditional notions of fairplay or substantial justice. Use specific jurisdiction when actions give rise to the lawsuit.

- Minimum Contacts: Is there purposeful availment? Is there stream of commerce?

- Stream of Commerce test (Daimler case) If a corporation puts an item into the stream of commerce then wherever it ends up is a suitable forum. EXCEPTION: Asahi Case shows that maybe merely putting an item into the stream of commerce is not purposeful availment without intending it to go to that jurisdiction. (ie. Online cases show that the internet website must be active and intending to be in that state).

- Asahi and Nicastro Tests: awareness that the product is sold is sufficient.

- The Whizzer Five: Testing reasonableness for requiring a nonresident to submit to the forum. (1) burden on defendant (2) forum's interest in resolving the dispute, (3) plaintiff's interest in resolving the dispute, (4) efficient resolution- most efficient place, (5) furthering fundamental substantive social policy. 

- Purposeful availment (It's only fair test) can be satisfied by (1) stream of commerce, (2) contractual ties, (3) presence/ actual contacts, (4) intentionally availing 

6. In rem : Stake in the Ground: Types of In Rem and when a court can use the property. Property cannot be attached to create jurisdiction. 

10th Amendment

1. State possesses exclusive jurisdiction over persons and properties within its territory.

2. No state can exercise "direct" jurisdiction over persons or property outside its territory.

Starting to Write an Exam Essay

#1 First thing to do in any case is to find the CALL OF THE QUESTION.

State the overarching issue in the fact pattern. The issue of this case is________________. If the issue is Personal Jurisdiction for example, then you must go through the steps. 

Step 4: Analyze and Conclude

Do not forget to ANALYZE the facts according to each step and to come to a CONCLUSION.

Check the Library for additional information. The study aid section has some multiple choice question books that will help with your understanding of personal jurisdiction. 

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Notice >>
• Last Updated: Apr 19, 2024 2:47 PM
• URL: https://charlestonlaw.libguides.com/c.php?g=509293

• About Professor Nathenson
• Legal scholarship
• Other writings
• Scholarship on SSRN
• Scholarship on Bepress
• About Civil Procedure
• Assignments
• Study resources
• Nathenson.org MBE resources
• YouTube MBE playlists
• Subject matter jurisdiction
• Due Process, notice, service
• Personal jurisdiction
• Erie Doctrine
• Motions, trial, judgments
• Claim & Issue Preclusion
• Innovations & Patent Management
• Intellectual Property
• Trademark & Branding Law
•         - About Professor Nathenson
•         - C.V.
•         - Contact me
•         - Legal scholarship
•         - Other writings
•         - Scholarship on SSRN
•         - Scholarship on Bepress
•                 - About Civil Procedure
•                 - Syllabus
•                 - Assignments
•                 - Study resources
•                 - About Professor Nathenson
•                 - Nathenson.org MBE resources
•                 - YouTube MBE playlists
•                         - By topic
•                         - Subject matter jurisdiction
•                         - Due Process, notice, service
•                         - Personal jurisdiction
•                         - MBE: Venue
•                         - Pleadings
•                         - Joinder
•                         - Erie Doctrine
•                         - Discovery
•                         - Motions, trial, judgments
•                         - Claim & Issue Preclusion
•                         - Appeals
•         - Innovations & Patent Management
•         - Intellectual Property
•         - Trademark & Branding Law

Personal jurisdiction study materials

• PJ concept sheets : provides important terms, use for study.
• Minimum contacts tables : provides conceptual guidance on the basics of the Minimum Contacts test.
• Long-arm statutes : conceptualize different types of state long-arm statutes.
• In rem/quasi in rem handout for  Shaffer case : the categories of In Rem and Quasi-In-Rem jurisdiction discussed in  Shaffer .
• Shaffer ‘s framework explained
• Personal Jurisdiction “Coggle” flowchart for PJ Big Picture Day

Study questions

• Study questions on PJ
• Study questions/topics for Pennoyer
• Study questions on International Shoe
• Study questions on McGee , Hanson , and World-Wide Volkswagen
• Study questions on Keeton & Calder
• Study questions on Burger King
• Study questions on Asahi
• Study questions on Daimler
• Study questions on Shaffer
• Study questions on Burnham
• Study questions on state and federal long-arms

Problem sets

• PJ problem set: questions
• PJ problem set: explanations

Practice and actual essays

• Actual prior essay exams  (includes some PJ questions)
• PJ Practice Essay: Amazone (simplified)
• PJ Practice Essay: Amazone (more difficult)
• PJ Practice Essay on yPhone by ALI Brittnay Wittnebel
• Student-submitted practice essays

PJ Big Picture Day, Fall 2015

This review was done twice. The first review (Section 1) was recorded in eight parts, sorted by sub-topic. The second review was recorded in one take. All nine videos are available on my YouTube channel.

PJ Big Picture Day, Fall 2014

PJ Problem Set discussion, Fall 2014

Last updated Nov. 23, 2015

• full brief list
• briefs by course

Civil Procedure Outline - Personal Jurisdiction

**abridged personal jurisdiction**.

• PJ available over a D through physical control (Burnham) or minimum contacts analysis (Int'l Shoe).
• Minimum contacts analysis:
• Long-arm Statute - Does the defendant come within the terms of the applicable long-arm statute? (states have tailored or due process-type)
• Minimum Contacts - Does the defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that the assertion of jurisdiction would not violate the Due Process Clause?
• Availment - Has the defendant "purposely availed" itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the state's laws? (Shoe - D entered state and conducted business there; BK, Hanson, Chalek - D entered into Ks with residents; WWVW, Asahi  - D's products entered "stream of commerce"; Kulko, Calder, Revell, Zippo -  D's out-of-state conduct caused injury/"effect" in the state)
• Relatedness - Does the lawsuit arise out of or related to the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum or, if it does not, are the defendant's forum contacts so extensive that no such relationship is necessary? (specific v. general jurisdiction - Perkins, Helicopteros)
• Reasonableness - Would the exercise of jurisdiction be unfair and unreasonable, taking into account the interests of the defendant, the forum state, the plaintiff, and other states that may have an interest in the matter? (Asahi)

**Full Personal Jurisdiction**

• Personal Jurisdiction  
• Essential elements in personal jurisdiction
• Due process dictates both that the forum state must have power over the target of the action and that litigating the action there must be reasonable. (WW VW and Burger King)
• While the P has the burden of persuasion as to power, it is up to the D to show unreasonableness  
• Physical power (Pennoyer), minimum contacts (Int'l Shoe), purposeful availment (Hanson v. Denckla)
• Query involved in finding whether power is sufficient is narrowed to whether the relation of the target to the forum state constitutes minimum contacts and does not consider the P's or the public's interests.
• Unreasonableness
• Fair play and substantial justice (Int'l Shoe)
• Must balance D's, P's, and public's interests (McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co)
• Convenience of litigating in the forum state, the availability of an alternative forum, the state's interest in adjudicating the dispute
• Forum does not need to be the ideal forum just not unreasonable. Very flexible and liberal test.  
• The Beginning of Personal Jurisdiction in Case Law
• Rigid methods of applying jurisdiction were used in early case law. These cases resolved some issues but left gaps that needed to be filled. (under inclusivity issues)
• Pennoyer v. Neff
• Facts - OR attorney sued CA Neff. Published notice in OR newspaper. Neff didn't show, attorney got default judgment. After trial, court attached some of Neff's land in OR and gave it to Neff.
•  Rule - A court may enter a judgment against a non-resident only if the party…
• Is personally served with process while within the state, or
• Has property within the state, and that property is attached before litigation begins (as in quasi in rem jurisdiction)
• Notes - Attorney did not have jurisdiction over Neff. This method of personal jurisdiction was too rigid.
• Harris v. Balk
• Facts - Harris, from NC, owed Balk, from NC, $180. Balk owed Epstein, from MD, $300. Epstein sued Harris when they were both in MD for the amount Harris owed Balk, $180. Epstein won judgment in MD, and Harris paid Epstein $180. Later, Balk sued Harris for the $180 owed to him.
• Rule - The situs of a person's debt is not stationery but follows him wherever he goes. States must give "full faith and credit" to judgments made against its residents when those residents are in another state.
• Notes - One of the first cases dealing with intangible property. Through this case, someone can gain in personam jurisdiction over a debtor's debtor if they are in the same state. (troublesome for corporate debtors)  
• SCOTUS saw that with the nationalization of our economy and advances in transportation technology, jurisdiction needed to be expanded through other cases. Problems were also present in cases of jurisdiction with corporations. Where do they exist? The next few cases expanded the bounds of personal jurisdiction.  
• How to Analyze Personal Jurisdiction Today  
• Test for "minimum contacts" jurisdiction:
• Does the defendant come within the terms of the applicable long-arm statute?
• Does the defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that the assertion of jurisdiction would not violate the Due Process Clause?
• Has the defendant "purposely availed" itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the state's laws?
• Does the lawsuit arise out of or related to the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum or, if it does not, are the defendant's forum contacts so extensive that no such relationship is necessary?
• Would the exercise of jurisdiction be unfair and unreasonable, taking into account the interests of the defendant, the forum state, the plaintiff, and other states that may have an interest in the matter?  
• Some states have tailored/specific-act long-arm statutes.
• Others have due-process-type long-arm statutes. (A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the U.S.)  
• International Shoe v. State of WA
• Facts - Int'l Shoe was a DE based corporation with a main office in St. Louis, MO. It had no offices, made no contracts for sale, and did not keep any warehouses of goods in WA.  They did have several salesmen employees who lived and sold merchandise for the company in WA. The state of WA sued Shoe in WA court for unpaid contributions to the state's unemployment fund. Notice was served to a salesman for the company in WA and via registered mail to the corporation's headquarters in MO.
• Rule -  If a party has "minimum contacts" in a state, that corporation is subject to the jurisdiction of that state as long as it does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice".
• Notes - Int'l Shoe had minimum contacts with WA because of the continuous relationship with the state and the relatedness of the action to the activities there. Minimum contacts is a qualitative measure.  Continuous and related - jurisdiction; Not continuous but related - tough case; Continuous but unrelated - tough case; Not continuous and unrelated - no jurisdiction  
• Contract Formation
• Active Contract Formation
• Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
• Facts - MI Rudzewicz applied for a franchise from FL based BK. Franchise was in MI. Rudzewicz failed to make payments, so BK tried to negotiation with Rudzewicz through its FL office. After negotiations failed, BK terminated the franchise. BK sued in FL.
• Rule - Alone, signing a contract with a party in the forum state is not sufficient to meet the minimum contacts requirement for that forum state. However, if the contract in that state is an intermediate step to tie up prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, the party may be seen as having purposefully established minimum contacts in that forum state, especially when the consequences arise proximately from the activities allowed by the contract.
• Notes - FL had no jurisdiction over the DE trust since trust had not purposely availed itself to the privilege of acting in that state. FL was probably the most judicially efficient place to litigate, but that does not matter. The contact with FL was unilateral.  
• Passive Contract Formation
• Chalek v. Klein
• Facts - IL Chalek sold software to NY Klein. When Klein found the software unsatisfactory, he returned it and put a stop payment on the check. Chalek sued for payment in IL court.
• Rule - Entering into a passive contract with an entity in a state does not subject someone to personal jurisdiction in that state.
• Notes - This may have been a case worried about the public policy involved with mail order/internet purchasing.
• Non-unilateral Activity
• Hanson v. Denckla
• Facts - PA Hanson set up trust in DE and made changes to it in FL cutting sisters out of some money. Sisters sued DE trust in FL court.
• Rule - There be some act by which the defendant "purposely avails" itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws, in order for the minimum contacts requirement for jurisdiction to be met. A forum state can only gain jurisdiction over an out of state corporation if that corporation has "minimal contacts" with that forum state.
• Stream of Commerce
• Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson
• Facts - Robinsons purchased an Audi from D (Seaway Volks) in NY. Following year, Robinsons moved to AZ, passing through OK where they were in an accident. Car caught on fire. Robinsons sued auto manufacturer, importer, regional distributor, and retail dealer in OK. Regional distributor (World-wide Volks) and retail dealer (Seaway Volks) are the parties in this case about jurisdiction.
• Rule -  Jurisdiction may be exercised if a party delivers its products into the "stream of commerce" with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.
• No jurisdiction over WW VW in OK. The forseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into a forum state, otherwise every chattel a company sold would be its agent for service of process. It is that the Ds conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. Thus, minimum contacts was the issue here, not fair play and substantial justice.
• Stream of Commerce "Plus"
• Asahi v. Superior Court of CA
• Facts - CA Zurcher lost control of motorcycle and collided with a tractor. He was badly hurt and his wife was killed. Zurcher sued Korean Cheng Shin Rubber who implicated Japanese Asahi. Asahi sold tire valve assemblies to Cheng Shin. Zurcher sued Asahi in CA court.
• Rule - The mere awareness on the part of a foreign D that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the US would reach the forum state in the stream of commerce does not constitute "minimum contacts" in that state.
• Notes - The "substantial connection" between the D and the forum state necessary for finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the D purposefully directed toward the forum state. O'Connor said that stream of commerce by itself is not sufficiently purposeful. Need stream of commerce plus. Advertising, designing for market (It's not terribly hard to find these plus factors, given capable attorneys, for American companies; harder for foreign companies) Ex. Vandelune v. 4B Elevator - Court found that a British manufacturer "designed" a component part for the American grain elevator market  
• Foreseeability
• Rule -  A forum state can exercise in personam jurisdiction over a party whose conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate (forseeability) being haled into court there. Jurisdiction may be exercised if a party delivers its products into the "stream of commerce" with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.
• Effects (Test)
• Calder v. Jones
• Facts - FL Calder's magazine wrote an article about CA Jones. Magazine's largest circulation was in CA. Jones claimed the article was libelous and sued in CA court.
• Rule -  A can exercise jurisdiction over a D based on the "effects test" - a state has power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who causes effects in a state by an act done elsewhere with respect to any cause of action arising from these effects.
• Notes - The Calder effects test will allow personal jurisdiction over a party whose conduct was expressly aimed at the forum state, knowing that the harmful effects would be felt primarily there, and that the defendants would "reasonably anticipate being haled into court there". The action was directed at CA, and the Ds knew it would cause an effect there.
• Zippo sliding scale- applies the effects test to the internet
• "Passive"- allows owner to post information on the internet. No PJ.
• "Active"- Repeated online contacts with residents over the internet. Personal jurisdiction may be proper.
• Middle ground between these- some interactive elements, bilateral info exchange. PJ possible.
• Revell v. Lidov (2002)
• Ds (Revell and Columbia U) sued by P (TX res.) for libel over paper posted to CU journalism forum.
• Fourth Circuit blended Zippo and Calder-  PJ can be exercised when:
• The person directs electronic activity into the state
• With the manifest intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the state
• The activity creates, in a person within the state, a potential cause of action cognizable in the States courts
• Ct ruled that article contained no reference to TX or Revell's TX activities, wasn't directed at TX readers, and was not the focal point of the article or harm suffered. Internet activity must also be directed at forum state.
• General v. Specific Jurisdiction- Does the lawsuit arise out of or is it related to D's purposeful contacts or, if it does not, are D's forum contacts so extensive that no such relationship is necessary?
• Specific/Subject matter jurisdiction
• This is almost always the case- general jurisdiction is much more difficult to prove than specific/subject matter jurisdiction.
• General jurisdiction
• Perkins v. Benguet Mining (1952)
• P sued D for stock dividends in OH. D operated in Philippines but had moved its essential operations to forum state b/c of Japanese invasion.
• Cause of action did not arise out of activities in OH, but a continuous and systematic, but limited, part of its general business was there at the time.
• Court ruled that OH could exercise jurisdiction if it wanted to, but it did not have to. This was a special case- not a normal company/situation.
• Did not establish a clear rule for general jurisdiction.
• Jurisdiction may have just been given because there was nowhere else that P could see.
• Helicopteros v. Hall (1984)
• Helicopter crash in South America, Ps sue D, the helicopter company, in TX.
• Ct looks for general jurisdiction- says it is hard to do general jurisdiction, unless it is a "normal company" who is headquartered there.
• Concern about "reaching" regarding general jurisdiction.
• If lawyers had just mentioned that pilot was trained in Houston, and the cause of action arises directly out of the pilot's training, case probably would have been decided differently.
• Would the exercise of jurisdiction be unfair and unreasonable, taking into account the interests of the defendant, the forum state, the plaintiff, and other states that may have an interest in the matter?
• Reasonableness: Would the exercise of jurisdiction be unfair and unreasonable, taking into account the interests of D, the forum state, P, and other states' interests?
• Asahi v. Superior Ct of CA (1987)(PART II)
• Essentially the court agreed that, even if there was purposeful availment, the case shouldn't be tried.
• Hurt American (Zucher) has already settled, and the Ct was left litigating indemnification suit between two foreign countries.
• Balance between P's interest (already settled), burden on D (high), state's interest (little to none), litigation interest (good reason not to want int'l cases)
• Policy concerns
•  Kulko v. Superior Court (1978)
• Kulkos got a divorce, mom moved to CA, kids stayed w/dad. Dad bought daughter plane ticket to move in with mom and visited kids while on business in CA. Mom filed for divorce in CA.
• Court ruled no jurisdiction, because D's only contacts were domestic relations and finding jurisdiction there would be bad public policy since it would discourage contacts with state former spouse was living in.
• Measuring "contacts" is a qualitative rather than a quantitative measure.
• Contact quality can be measured in terms of its relation to the subject of the lawsuit.
• Post- Pennoyer in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction
• Shaffer v. Heitner (1977)
• P sued D in shareholder's derivative suit. P filed motion to sequester all Ds stocks, since DE said the situs of a stock was the state where Greyhound was incorporated.
• Court ruled that a state cannot acquire jurisdiction over a nonresident party's property solely because the property is in the forum state. The "minimum contacts" test applies.
• Court was basically saying that quasi in rem is not really needed anymore; everything should be tested under International Shoe.
• Pennoyer's in personam jurisdiction is still applicable.
• Burnham v. Superior Court (1990)
• P sued D for divorce, served him while he was in CA on business.
• Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Copyright (c) 2009 Onelbriefs.com. All rights reserved. Design by Free CSS Templates .

• 0 Shopping Cart $ 0.00 -->

Want to learn more about law school tutoring with JD Advising? Attend our free tutoring information session on September 5th at 12:00 pm ET to get all your questions answered!

Learn the best strategies to succeed in law school in this free downloadable guide , written by our founder who graduated #1 in her class!

Overwhelmed in law school? We can help! Check out our law school tutoring and law school outlines – our top law school resources that are sure to get you back on track!

Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam – Highly Tested Topics

Civil procedure on the multistate essay exam: what do i need to know.

Are you taking the bar exam in a jurisdiction that administers the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) or the Multistate Essay Exam (MEE)? If so, it’s important to know how Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam looks because it is the most highly tested subject! Civil Procedure has appeared on the UBE 11 times on the last 14 exams! Below we tell you the most frequently tested issues in Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam.

1. Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to hear a case over a particular person. The Examiners want you to be familiar with how to analyze both general and specific jurisdiction. There are three bases for general jurisdiction – presence, consent, and domicile. If none of these are present, then go on to analyze specific jurisdiction (minimum contacts test). Lastly, make sure that if a court has personal jurisdiction over an individual that it also complies with the Due Process Clause.

Occasionally, the Examiners have tested whether putting a product in the stream of commerce is enough for personal jurisdiction to exist. Be familiar with the different approaches set forth in the US Supreme Court case Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court .

  2.  Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction is also one of the most common issues in Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam. Remember that subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the federal courts to hear a particular case. Subject matter jurisdiction can appear in several ways:

Federal Question Jurisdiction

• The easiest way for federal question jurisdiction to exist is if the plaintiff asserts a claim that is a federal question created by federal law (e.g., the United States Constitution, federal statutes). Look at the face of the plaintiff’s complaint! Also, remember that federal question jurisdiction does not exist if the plaintiff merely anticipates that the defendants will raise a defense based in federal law.

Diversity Jurisdiction

• To find that diversity jurisdiction is present you must find that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Every now and then the Examiners well test some of the nuances of diversity jurisdiction, including: 1) an executor is from the same state as the decedent for diversity purposes; 2) whether diversity exists is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed; and 3) the “legal certainty” test is used to see if the amount in controversy has been satisfied.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

• Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that do not meet the elements of federal question or diversity jurisdiction. If you see a fact pattern where a party is trying to add a claim to case that is already in federal court, first check whether federal question or diversity jurisdiction exists! If neither is present, only then should you analyze supplemental jurisdiction. Be mindful of the restrictions placed on a plaintiff’s ability to add claims using supplemental jurisdiction.

3. Service of Process

Furthermore, be aware of the details concerning service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are four ways to serve an individual: 1) serve according to state law methods where the federal court is located or where service is made, 2) serve an agent of the individual, 3) serve the individual directly, or 4) leave a copy of the summons and complaint at the individual’s abode with someone of suitable age and discretion.

You should also be familiar with the different ways to serve a corporation. Again, you may comply with state law methods where the district court is located or where service is made. Or you can deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer or managing agent of the corporation.

Lastly, remember if the defendant is challenging the validity of service of process, she must do so in her first response to the plaintiff or it may be waived.

Venue determines in which judicial district a Plaintiff may file a lawsuit. We already know that a federal court has the power to hear the case. But we must narrow down which federal court(s) can hear the case.  Sometimes the Examiners have tested how to determine venue for an individual or a corporation.

The Examiners can also test venue in the context of conflict of laws. Specifically, the Examiners want you to know which law applies when venue is transferred to a more appropriate forum (the law of the transferor court). Or you will be tested on which law applies when a case is transferred to judicial district with a proper venue (the law of the of the transferee state).

As you are studying, also make sure that you memorize the rules for the aforementioned areas and understand how they have been tested on previous MEEs. Use this as a starting point and then go on to reviewing the rules for other topics, such as removal, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

We hope this post on Civl Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam is helpful!

Ambika, one of our bar exam tutors, wrote this post on Civil Procedure on the Multistate Essay Exam. She has passed three bar exams, including California, New York, and New Jersey. Ambika scored in the 95 percentile on the MBE, and specializes in helping students raise their uniform bar exam scores!

Seeking mee expertise.

🌟 Freebies & Discounts

• Free Bar Exam Resource Center : Explore for leading guides, articles, and webinars.
• Expert-Crafted Bar Exam Guides : Unveil insights on high-frequency MEE topics and strategies for success.
• Free Webinars : Engage with top bar exam experts.

🔥 Top-Rated MEE Resources

• MEE One-Sheets : Boost your confidence with our most popular bar exam product!
• Bar Exam Outlines : Our comprehensive and condensed bar exam outlines present key information in an organized, easy-to-digest layout.
• NEW MEE Mastery Class : Unearth focused, engaging reviews of essential MEE topics.
• Bar Exam Crash Course and Mini Outlines : Opt for a swift, comprehensive refresher.
• MEE Private Tutoring and feedback : Elevate your approach with tailored success strategies.
• MEE Course : Preview our acclaimed five-star program for unmatched instruction, outlines, and questions.

🔥 NEW! Dive deep into our Repeat Taker Bar Exam Course and discover our unrivaled Platinum Guarantee Pass Program .

Related posts

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Public Interest

By using this site, you allow the use of cookies, and you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service .

Cookie and Privacy Settings

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

Get the Reddit app

For current and former Law School Redditors. Ask questions, seek advice, post outlines, etc. This is NOT a forum for legal advice.

Specific Jurisdiction Hell

Trying to understand specific jurisdiction so I can do well on my exam. Any feedback on my analysis, tips on how to approach the issue on an exam, or any helpful reading I should look at it would be hugely appreciated.

Specifically, I'm trying to wrap my head around the stream-of-commerce foreseeability vs. directed activities/targeting divide. I'm getting tripped up because it seems like the court has never come to a consensus on the topic, in their interpretation of WWV and subsequently the split opinions in Asahi and J McIntyre. Here's how I see it. Two approaches:

Directed Activities/Targeting

This is the plurality opinion in Asahi and the O'Connor concurrence in J McIntyre. When an out-of-state manufacturer places their product in the stream of commerce, and it ends up in the forum state as the subject of a lawsuit, it is not sufficient basis for specific jurisdiction absent additional affirmative actions by the manufacturer to "target" the forum state via advertising, employees in the state, or other business/marketing infrastructure aimed at the forum. Absent these affirmative actions, we don't care if the manufacturer hoped/intended/expected/foresaw that the product would end up in the forum state. It's not sufficient for specific jurisdiction. It's a party's actions not intentions that provide the basis for specific jurisdiction.

2. Foreseeability

This is the Brennan concurrence in Asahi and Breyer concurrence in J McIntyre. The manufacturer's placement of a product in the stream-of-commerce is sufficient for specific jurisdiction as long as they foresaw or expected their product to end up in the forum state. Their product regularly ending up in the forum is evidence of this. No other affirmative actions are necessary.

The Ginsberg J McIntyre dissent doesn't seem to fit well in either. I read it as saying that if you target the whole United States, you are targeting whatever state your products end up being sold in (especially if it is foreseeable).

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Uniform Bar Examination

• Registration
• Score Portability
• Minimum Scores
• Maximum Score Age
• Local Components
• UBE Jurisdictions

Test Administration February 25–26, 2025 Test Administration July 29–30, 2025

Jurisdictions That Have Adopted the UBE

Select a jurisdiction for a summary of bar admission information specific to that jurisdiction and contact information for its bar admission agency. Note that jurisdictions that adopt the UBE may be indicated as such with incomplete information until rule amendments are finalized.

• UBE Adopted
• UBE Not Adopted
• District of Columbia
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Puerto Rico
• Virgin Islands

Some UBE jurisdictions require a pre-admission jurisdiction-specific law component.  

• Test Day Policies

Each jurisdiction will provide specific information regarding materials, including appropriate identification, that examinees are allowed to bring with them to the test center.

About the UBE

The Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) is coordinated by NCBE and is composed of the following components: 

• the Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) , 
• two  Multistate Performance Test (MPT)  tasks
• the  Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) . 

It is uniformly administered, graded, and scored and results in a portable score that can be transferred to other UBE jurisdictions. 

Registration Information

Applicants register for the UBE by applying to a user jurisdiction for the bar exam. Applicants who have taken the UBE may transfer their UBE scores to seek admission in other UBE jurisdictions.

NCBE scores the MBE component of the UBE. Jurisdictions grade the MEE and MPT components. The MEE and MPT scores are scaled to the MBE and UBE total scores are calculated by NCBE. The MBE is weighted 50%, the MEE 30%, and the MPT 20%. UBE total scores are reported on a 400-point scale.

Examinees who take the UBE earn a portable score that can be transferred to seek admission in other UBE jurisdictions.

To view the minimum passing UBE score by jurisdiction, visit our Minimum Scores page.

To view the maximum age of transferred UBE score by jurisdiction, visit our Maximum Score Age page. 

• Jurisdictions
• ADHD Medical Documentation Guidelines
• Accommodation Decisions
• Accommodations FAQs
• Apply For Test Accommodations
• Extension Requests
• How To Prepare Your Request
• Important Dates for MPRE Test Accomodations
• Learning Disabilities Medical Documentation Guidelines
• MPRE Stop-The-Clock Breaks
• MPRE Test Accommodations Privacy Policy
• Medical Documentation Guidelines For MPRE Test Accommodations
• Neurocognitive Disorders
• Physical and Chronic Health-Related Disabilities
• Psychological Disabilities
• Test Conditions
• Visual Disabilities
• Implementation Timeline
• Integrated Question Sets
• Multiple-Choice
• Performance Task
• Content Scope
• Character & Fitness
• MBE Score Services
• MPRE Score Services
• UBE Score Services
• Bar Exam Results by Jurisdiction
• Technical Advisory Panel
• Covington Award
• Validity and Fairness Research Award
• Publications
• Media Resources
• Job Announcements
• Next Generation of The Bar Exam
• Diversity and Inclusion
• News/Resources
• NextGen Bar Exam
• Help & Support

The full article is available below.

You will also receive a follow-up email containing a link so you can come back to it later.

U.S. bar exam study tips

Last Updated: Sep 04, 2024

As you approach how to study for the bar exam,   you’ll likely come across all kinds of “time-saving” advice, that may sound something like this: “to pass the bar exam, all you really need to do is ( fill-in-the-blank here ).” Now that you are a trained critical thinker, hopefully any bar exam study advice that begins with, “all you have to do is …” immediately triggers suspicion. As the saying goes, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. 

For any significant achievement like passing the bar exam, there is no simple, one-size-fits-all shortcut. Passing the bar exam is hard and it requires considerable effort, but there are some general study tips and learning strategies that will increase your likelihood of passing the bar. 

Study broad for the bar exam, not deep

In law school, students who know the most about a subject are typically those who achieve the highest grades on final exams. This is not so when it comes to studying for the bar exam. In fact, using this same approach to study for your bar exam can actually be detrimental.

Effective bar exam study strategies are built on knowledge that is wide and shallow rather than narrow and deep. To pass the bar, you don’t have to reach a level of authority on any of the subjects tested. You simply need to know just enough, about enough areas of the law, to land on the passing side of the  bar exam grading curve .

Also, just because something CAN be tested on the bar exam doesn’t mean it’s likely to be tested. To ensure you’re spending your bar exam study time where it matters most, you’ll want to select a bar prep partner that knows what is most likely to be tested, and primarily focuses your time and energy in those areas.

Measure what matters as you study for the bar

So how do you know if you’re doing well enough in enough areas during your bar exam studies to ultimately pass?  

Although the bar exam is “pass/fail” based on the cut score established by each U.S. state and jurisdiction, few bar takers truly consider the implications that “pass/fail” will have on their bar exam preparation. Striving to achieve an “A” in any one area will not help you land on the right side of the bar exam curve and pass. Studying to get an “A” in specific subjects may actually distract you and undermine your bar prep strategy.

The better strategy is to track the number of practice questions you’re getting correct, in each subject,  in comparison to everyone else also preparing to take the bar exam . This is your percentile rank.

Your goal is to be at the 40th percentile or above in each subject. That’s the best way to ensure that you are doing well enough, in enough areas, to ultimately pass your bar exam. Remember, the key is broad, not deep.

Approach the MBE systematically

BARBRI has helped students pass the MBE since it was first administered in 1972. Despite its early reputation as being tricky, we know that achieving a strong score on the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) is not about avoiding tricks and traps. It’s about taking a methodical, straightforward approach to answering bar exam questions.

During the MBE, you’ll answer 200 multiple-choice questions administered in two separate 3-hour sessions: 100 questions in the morning, 100 questions in the afternoon. That’s an average of 1.8 minutes spent per MBE question, which requires a repeatable, systematic methodology.

At BARBRI, we have found it best to treat MBE bar exam questions like essay questions – albeit short ones with the answers already provided — with this approach:

• Cover the answer choices to avoid distraction and first read the call of the question, so you can determine the subject being tested and the issue you are answering.
• If the call of the question isn’t specific enough, read the sentence just above for more guidance.
• Now, read the entire question in light of the issue being tested. Use the facts, and the law associated with them, to mentally formulate your own answer to the question. (Note: You’re still not looking at the answer choices.)
• Then predict the correct answer and look for the answer choice that best matches your predicted answer.

This systematic problem-solving method ensures that you focus on the actual problem to solve and reduces the risk of being distracted by details that may ultimately be irrelevant to the call of the question. Additionally, coming to your own conclusion first and then matching the best answer provided will increase your confidence in what you’ve selected.

Develop your bar exam writing skills up front

We often hear that students hold back on bar exam practice essays during bar review because they feel they need to know all the rules of the law before they submit a practice essay. There are reasons why we don’t recommend this study strategy.

The written portion of the bar exam is important to your overall score in every state. In some, greater scoring weight is placed on the essays as compared to the MBE.  Download the BARBRI Bar Exam Digest  for bar exam scoring information for your state/jurisdiction.

Essay writing for the bar exam is different than the final exams you experienced in law school. It’s an acquired skill that must be strengthen. For example, on most bar exam essays, there’s actually a “right” answer. Also, to maximize your point potential on bar exam essays, you’ll need to provide an answer to the call of the question in the format the bar examiners want and expect to see. Therefore, it's important to acquire and strengthen your bar exam essay skills during bar prep, while you’re still learning and reinforcing your black letter law knowledge.

With that said, we’ve seen that submitting practice essay after essay before receiving and digesting feedback reinforces bad habits and wastes time. An unguided and purely “unlimited” essay grading system can serve to stunt your progress. Submitting practice essays and incorporating previous feedback into the next assigned essay over time is a better way to continually improve your essay writing skills. 

Use the MPT to pick up valuable points

If you are like most bar exam takers, you’ll probably spend a majority of your time working practice MBE questions and writing practice essays. Just don’t want lose sight of the Multistate Performance Test (MPT).

Many who unfortunately don’t pass the bar exam typically end up barely below the cut score — just a few points short. This is where the MPT can help. It’s an important opportunity to pick up valuable points or, conversely, lose out on points if you’re not prepared.

What is the MPT exactly? It’s a real-world readiness measurement that allows bar examiners to assess your fundamental lawyering skills rather than test substantive legal knowledge. The MPT is part of most bar exams, and it challenges you to think critically and resourcefully on tasks that a beginning lawyer might encounter.

For example, you may be asked to create a persuasive brief, legal memo, client letter, discovery plan, settlement offer, will or closing argument. Whatever the given assignment, you’ll need to demonstrate your ability to evaluate the facts of the case file, analyze the problem and perform the task within the 90 minutes allotted for each item. The best way to familiarize yourself with possible MPT tasks is to work practice MPTs during your bar preparation.

Download the BARBRI Bar Exam Digest  for information about the MPT and the bar exam scaled scoring formula for your state/jurisdiction. 

Tackle hard MBE questions head on

During your bar exam, it might seem like a good idea to skip difficult MBE questions and come back to them later. Our advice: tackle them as they come.

The bar exam is mentally draining. At the end of each 3-hour MBE session, you’re going to be tired and your critical thinking skills won’t be as sharp. Use our systematic problem solving methodology, make your best educated guess and then mark the question in your test booklet if you have some time left after answering all the questions, you can give the harder ones another quick look.

When you come across an MBE question that's taking too much time to figure out (remember, 1.8 minutes on average per question), use it to make up time on the bar exam. Spend one minute to go through the question, make your best guess and move on. Don’t overthink it. Typically, the correct answer will be an option that is familiar to you. More often than not, completely unfamiliar or obscure answer choices are incorrect.

Ready to start studying? Find the BARBRI bar prep course that’s built for you

Traditional bar review full-time course | 8-10 week.

Study for any U.S. state exam, including the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE). Best for: Candidates with a J.D. from a U.S. law school looking for the quickest, most efficient & effective course to pass any U.S. state bar exam

Part-time course | 6- or 10-month

Study for a UBE state, including New York or California Best for: Best for candidates without a J.D. from a U.S. law school looking for the most comprehensive bar prep or students who want more study time & flexibility

Unlock the Full Article

Tell us a little about yourself and your goals to display the full article and gain access to more resources relevant to your needs.

Interesting in reading more? Fill out the form to read the full article.