New Hampshire
How Calder v. Jones applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
New Hampshire follows a similar rationale as Calder v. Jones in assessing personal jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of purposeful availment and the defendant's connection to the state. Courts analyze whether the defendant's actions were directed toward New Hampshire and whether the claim arises from those contacts.
In New Hampshire, to establish personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state, such that exercising jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
The court held that a non-resident defendant could be subject to New Hampshire's jurisdiction where the defendant purposefully availed themselves of conducting activities within the state.
The court determined that engaging in business transactions within the state amounted to sufficient contacts to establish personal jurisdiction.
The court found that the defendant's active solicitation of customers from New Hampshire constituted sufficient minimum contacts to justify jurisdiction.
New Hampshire's approach aligns closely with the federal standard established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which similarly requires that a defendant has purposefully directed activities at the forum state. While New Hampshire emphasizes a balance of contacts, the federal standard also considers the overall fairness of exercising jurisdiction based on the specific facts presented.
Issues related to personal jurisdiction under Calder v. Jones and its interpretation in New Hampshire are likely to appear on the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly in essays focusing on jurisdiction and constitutional due process.