Michigan
How Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court applies in Michigan: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
Michigan law generally follows the principles of specific jurisdiction as established in Asahi. The Michigan Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of a defendant's purposeful availment of the forum state in determining jurisdiction.
Michigan applies the 'minimum contacts' test where a defendant must either purposefully avail themselves of the benefits and protections of Michigan law or maintain sufficient contacts with the state to provide fair warning of litigation.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a single transaction in Michigan can establish specific jurisdiction if it relates to the cause of action.
The court held that online activities that target Michigan residents can constitute purposeful availment.
It was determined that the defendant's regular business operations within Michigan created sufficient contacts for jurisdiction.
Michigan's approach mirrors the federal standards articulated in Asahi; however, Michigan courts often take a more expansive view of what constitutes purposeful availment, particularly regarding online transactions and business activities.
Understanding Michigan's application of specific jurisdiction principles is essential for the bar exam, especially in questions regarding personal jurisdiction and the minimum contacts test.