Personal Jurisdiction: The Basic Principles

1- Traditional Bases:
- From a pre-constitutional time in the US, to the ratification of the 14 th amendment; the
jurisdictional rules were viewed as international and territorial in nature. The ratification of
the US constitution did not alter these rules, and so they continued to govern the
judgements of state courts, unless they were changed by federal constitutional provisions
or statutes.
- The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution and its first implementation in a
statute did not abolish or alter the International Territorial rules. Even the Congress in the
first implementing statute of Full Faith and Credit Clause had not modified the traditional
rules because “there was no evil in this part of the existing law”.
- Under Pennoyer case things changed a little. The case begins with a resident of Oregon by
the name of John Mitchell: an attorney. Mitchell was hired by a settler named Marcus Neff
to perform legal services on a land Neff hoped to acquire. Mitchell did as instructed.
However, before Mitchell could collect his bill, Neff went to California. Therefore, Mitchell
sued his client. At this point in a lawsuit, the defendant had to be served with “process," the
legal procedure where defendants are notified that they are part of a legal suite. However,
Neff was missing and unable to receive process. The Oregon state court system provided
for instances like this where a defendant was unreachable, that it was acceptable for notice
to be posted in a newspaper published in the county where the action is commenced. With
sufficient notice of the suit posted in the local paper, Mitchell could proceed with his lawsuit
without Neff present. In Neff's absence, Mitchell received a default judgment from the court
in his favor. Mitchell used the court to seize the land and have it auctioned off to satisfy his
default judgment. And then he sold it to another attorney named Pennoyer who would
believe he is the rightful owner of the land. After a while, Marcus Neff returned from
California and asked Pennoyer to leave the land, the latter refused, and so Marcus filed a
lawsuit against him. This case made it to the US S.P. The Court ruled that Pennoyer was
not entitled to Neff's land. It considered that Oregon court did not have personal jurisdiction
over Marcus, because he was a non-resident at the time. Pennoyer's ruling was that
Mitchell did not sue Neff in the right state. For the Oregon court to have personal jurisdiction
over Neff, Neff would have needed to be personally served process in Oregon. Pennoyer
held that state courts only have personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants when
those defendants are physically present in the state when served process.
- Moreover, special problems occurred when the state sought to exercise jurisdiction to
adjudicate an action involving intangible property, like a debt: In Harris VS Balk, plaintiff
who is Harris owed Defendant Balk $180. Both parties resided in North Carolina. Balk owed
Epstein, a 3rd part, a resident of Maryland, $300, and when Epstein knew that Harris was
coming to Maryland he had him served in a Maryland court. At the conclusion of
proceedings in Maryland, Harris agreed to pay the $180 directly to Epstein and have his
debt with Balk wiped away. However, within two days of returning to North Carolina, Balk
brought this claim, arguing that the $180 judgment had no significance in North Carolina
because Maryland had no jurisdiction over the debt between two résidents of North
Carolina. The district and Supreme courts of North Carolina rules in his favor. The United
States Supreme Court held that although the general rule is that only states that are the
domicile of the creditor or debtor typically have jurisdiction. However, Defendant was aware
that Plaintiff in error was in Maryland, as evidence by his suit filed shortly after his return.
Thus Balk had notice of the proceedings in Maryland. Also, the debt follows the debtor, and
since the debtor was physically present in Maryland, the establishment of jurisdiction over
 Harris was proper in Maryland, and the judgment was valid, and therefore North Carolina is
required to give full faith in credit to the Maryland judgment.
- Domicile also became a valid basis of in rem jurisdiction in the US, especially in divorce
cases. The Supreme Court has recognized that a state has the power to divorce a married
couple one or both spouses are domiciled in the same state. This power is based on the
theory that the status of a person Is like a thing that is located where the person is
domiciled.
- Corporation posed a particular problem under the traditional theory, because when should a
state be able to apply personal jurisdiction over a non physical creature. In the absence of
actual consent by a foreign corporation, the rule was that the corporation must dwell in the
place of its creation and the officer of the corporation does not carry his functions with him
when he leaves the state, meaning that in personam actions could not be maintained
against corporations outside the state in question. However, to avoid this restriction, states
required that foreign corporations, as a condition of doing business in that state, to appoint
agents who will receive process. This is known as “ the presence theory” to justify
jurisdiction. Under either the consent or presence theory, the corporation had to be doing
business in that state, and the question so becomes whether the corporation is doing the
kind and level of business that would subject it to jurisdiction of that state. Also, it was not
clear whether corporations could be subjected to a suit based on the presence theory if the
claim arose elsewhere, cases like thus seemed to require higher level of corporation activity
within the state “systematic and continuous contact”
- The implied consent theory used to establish jurisdiction over corporations was eventually
expand to individuals. If a state had the power toto place conditions on a defendant’s
activity within the state, it could use the theory to provide that performance of that activity
would constitute consent to suit within that state. For example, in Hess VS Pawloski, the
Supreme Court upheld a state’s statute providing that use of the state’s highways by a non-
resident motorist resulted in the appointment of the registrar of motors as the agent of the
motorist, whom will be served process in case of an action arising out of an accident.
2- Contemporary Bases:
- In International She Cor VS Washington, the Supreme Cout began to abandon Pennoyer’s
territorial theory and its adoption of a new “fairness” approach. In this case, the defendant
foreign corporation had not been doing business in Washington in the traditional sense,
though it had been engaging in business transactions. It had several salesmen who took
orders for shoes in the state, but the contact for sale and the shipment of shoes were
always made in and from another state. The plaintiff who is the state of Washington sued
for taxes due to the state. Service was on one of the salesmen, not authorized by the
defendant to accept service. The US Supreme Court made it clear that the service was
designed to give the defendant actual notice and fair opportunity to come into court. As for
the question of whether the state can exercise jurisdiction in this case, the court eld that the
defendant’s activities “establish sufficient contacts with the state of the forum”. Therefore, in
order for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, he must have such
minimum contacts with the state, even if he is not present within the territory of the forum,
so that exercising jurisdiction over the defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice.
- The minimum contact standard entails a 2 step inquiry: first, a court should examine the
facts of the case to determine if the defendant’s activities were sufficient to justify that
state’s exercise of jurisdiction. If the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state,
a court should undertake the second step and determine whether an exercise of jurisdiction
 in the case will offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. If a court
determines that it could be unfair for it to exercise jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action.
- Although Inter shoe Co standards mov away from the traditional territorial theory of
Pennoyer, it does not completely abandon the territorial theory. Both the traditional test and
the minimum contacts test require proof of a relationship between the acts of the defendant
and the forum state.
- After Inter Shoe cor, he status of Pennoyer’s territorial rules were ambiguous. The court’s
opinion in Inter Shoe stated that due process would be satisfied by an assertion of
jurisdiction over a non resident defendant who had minimum contact with the forum state,
but the minimum contacts test had not eliminated the ability to assert jurisdiction under
territorial rules situation were they were applicable.
- In Shaffer VS Heitner: Plaintiff Heitner owns one share of stock in a company incorporated
in Delaware that has its principle place of business in Arizona. He filed suit against twenty-
eight of the company's former and current officers and directors for violating their duties to
the company with actions that had made the company liable to other legal action. The
planting wanted the taking of the stocks that they owned in the company that is
incorporated in Delaware, but defendants weren't residents of Delaware. However,
Delaware has a statute allowing a court of Delaware to take jurisdiction of a lawsuit by
taking any of the defendant's property in Delaware. The taking was granted. The
defendants who had property seized requested to consider the taking order void, arguing
that it violated their due process. And so the question is: Can a person be sued in a state
merely because they own some property in that state? Defendant's Argument: The taking
statute as applied violates Due process because it lets courts exercise jurisdiction without
the defendant having sufficient contacts with that state And the US Supreme Court held that
a person must have more contacts than merely owning unrelated property in a state.
Judgment of the Delaware Supreme Court was reversed. Therefore, In rem suits are also
subject to the "minimum contacts" test.
- Despite the appearance that the minimum contacts test would govern all future cases after
this one, the Supreme Court stated that the territorial traditional ules jurisdiction is still valid
under the fairness standard of Inter Shoe. However, if that old jurisdiction is still valid under
the fairness standard of Inter Shoe, what other territorial rules might also be valid under the
standard? The answer to this is found in the case of Burnham VS Superior Court: Plaintiff a
New Jersey resident, visited California on business, while in California, he was served with
a California court summons and a copy of his wife’s divorce petition. Plaintiff made a
special appearance in California to file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court
lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion. The question
is: Whether the Due Process clause denies a state court jurisdiction over a non- resident
who was personally served with process while temporarily in that state. The Supreme Court
upheld the ruling of the California Superior Court. Jurisdiction based on physical presence
alone constitutes due process. Therefore an individual’s physical presence in a state while
personally receiving process satisfies traditional standard of fairness and substantial justice.
- Taken together, Shaffer and Burnham leave the status of traditional territorial rules in doubt.
3- Specific and general jurisdiction:
- There are 2 types of jurisdiction, specific and general which are judged by different tests of
validity.
- The Court has decided 2 general jurisdiction cases since Intern Shoe. On of them is the
case Perkins VS Benguet, the court found that Ohio’s assertion of juris on the corporation
was valid, because the corporation was exercising continuous and systematic activities in
the state.
 - General jurisdiction allows the court to rule on any dispute involving defendant even if the
minimum contacts with the forum state are weak / Specific Juris on the other hand, refers t
the court’s “dispute specific” power to rule on lawsuits that have a direct connection with the
forum. Therefore, it requires a stronger connection between the forum, the dispute and the
defendant that general juris.
- These distinctions are essential in determining which court has juris over a particular case.
The choice between both jurisdictions is made by the court, based on the nature of the
case, the connection between the parties, the facts and the forum, and of curse while
respecting constitutional due process and minimum contacts test, which ensures the
exercise of a fair and reasonable juris.
- The court may choose general juris when the defendant has continuous contacts with the
forum state regardless of whether this contact is related to his activities in the state / The
court may choose specific jurisdiction when the case is directly connected to the
defendants' activities in the forum state.
4- Forum Non Conveniens:
The fact that a court has personal jurisdiction for a particular case does not mean that the
particular court is the best one to resolve the issue.

- Forum shopping is looking for the place where plaintiff may secure higher award or
damages, or where judicial procedure is more favourable for the plaintiff.
- Most states allowed judges the discretion to refuse ton hear actions on the basis of forum
non conveniens. Court exercise this discretion when the claim, usually a tort one, has little
to no connection with the state in which suit is brought and can more fairly be adjudicated +
Also in order to avoid unfairness to the Defendant in extreme cases + courts can apply the
doctrine of forum non convenies even if the law of the more convenient forum is less
favourable t the plaintiff.
5- Choice of forum clauses:
- The attitude towards forum selection clauses is not universal. Until recently American courts
held such clauses to be invalid against public policy. Today, however, courts regard choice
of forum clauses as neither absolutely binding nor absolutely void. As long as these clauses
that limits a court’s personal jurisdiction are not unfair or unreasonable, courts accept them.
If these clauses also contradict the public policy of the forum, they won’t be sustained.
Courts are less likely to sustain the clauses if they appear in adhesion contracts which the
of the parties prepared in advance. However in Carnival Lines VS Shute, the US Supreme
Court held that forum selection clauses in adhesion contracts are not automatically void
simply because the parties did not bargain over them.
- These clauses are mostly found in arbitration contracts, and courts generally respect
arbitration clauses.
6- State judgement: Basic rule of enforceability:
- Under the “same effect” command a state may not refuse to enforce a judgement of
another state simply on the ground that the judgement violates the public policy of the
judgement-enforcing state. In Fauntleroy Lum, a Missouri state court had rendered
judgement against the defendant based on a contract governed by Mississippi law, under
which the contract was invalid. When the plaintiff sought to enforce the judgement in
Mississippi, the Mississippi courts held that the judgement was unenforceable. The US
Supreme Court held that the judgement could not be refused enforcement on the grounds
that it violates Mississippi’s public policy even if the Missouri judgement was based on a
misunderstanding of the Mississippi law. As long as the rendering court had personal
 jurisdiction, the judgement was valid in Missouri and had to be given the same effect in
Mississippi.
- However, the same effect rule does not require that a judgment enforcing state enforce the
judgement the same way it would have been enforced in the rendering state. The US
Supreme Court stated in the case of General Motors Corp that “Full faith and credit does
not mean that stats must adopt the practices of other states regarding the manner and
mechanisms for enforcing judgements”
- Therefore, we can say that enforcing state judgements requires coordination of two
constitutional doctrines: Full faith and credit, sometimes opposed by Due process. The full
faith and credit clause requires that each state gives full faith and credit to the judgements
of other states. The enforcement of judgements between states is governed by the Comity
clause of the constitution, that refers to the respect that courts of one jurisdiction gives to
the laws and judicial decisions of another state jurisdiction. This concept is based on
reciprocity and mutual respect among states’ jurisdictions.
7- State judgements: claims and issue preclusion:
*They prevent the relitigating of the same issue in different lawsuits.
- Claim Preclusion: A claim must be completely resolved by a final judgement on the merits in the
1st lawsuit. In other words, if a claim is decided in a previous case, it cannot be sued again even if
the defendant is different or if the facts are slightly different. In this case the lawsuit should be
dismissed.
- Issue Preclusion: It prevents the same issue of fact or law from being litigated again. If the issue
has been decided in a previous case, it cannot be raised again in a new lawsuit even if the parties
are different. In this case the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Applicable Law
1- Vested rights theory / Territorial approach: This theory dominated academic analysis in
the American choice of law field for many years. It was Professor Beale who developed it.
- Beale’s idea was that the location of a significant factor in a transaction should identify the
state whose law should govern the transaction. Example: the law of the land’s site
governed land questions, the law of the place where contracts were concluded governed
contracts questions, the place of harmful impact “place of tort” governed law questions.
Designation of these significant factors was made to lead to a choice of governing law, and
rights and obligations were considered to be vested at the time and place selected in
accordance with the law of that place.
- The court had only to determine the nature of the issue before it, look up the choice of law
rule appropriate to that case, then apply the rule to the facts. If all courts did this, they would
achieve uniformity and predictability of results.
• Critique: Each state court develops and applies its own conflicts law within constitutional
limits. In other words, conflicts law is local law. For vested rights to exist, there must be
some compulsion behind the, some reassurance that courts will recognize them. That's why
commentators rejected this theory and developed “local conflict law” theory. But some
courts, influenced by the 1st statement still apply it.
- Academics and courts criticized the vested rights theory on 3 grounds: first, courts could
and did use characterization and other escape devices to manipulate the outcome of the
case. Second, the selected event that determines what law would be applicable was often
fortuitous. Third, the principal virtues of the vested rights theory were illusions.
- Another theory that appeared based on the Vested Rights doctrine is Lex Loci Delicti: In
the field of torts, as in other fields, the common law of conflict developed as a territorial law.
Courts said that the law of the place in which the alleged tort occurred determined whether
it was tortious. If the liability with no fault is in question, the law of the place where the injury
occurred would likewise govern the issues. Assume a husband and wife, domiciled together
n state F, were on an automobile trip crossing state X where, due to the husband’s
negligence the wide got injured. Th law of state X allowed no recovery. The wife could not
recover if she brought the case before of the court of state F, because the tort happened in
state X, therefore the law of stet X is applicable. Vicarious liability is the sae, one person is
liable in tort for another’s act only if the law of the place where the event occurred makes
him so, regardless of the law of the state where the parties’ relationship was established.
The American states appear t still follow the lex loci delicti, though the number is declining.
Some acts produce impact across state lines. The rule, with torts, is that when an act
operates across a state line, the law of the place where it has harmful effect is applicable.
Thus, if a liquor store in Missouri sells liquor to a minor who subsequently drive intoxicated
in Kansas and causes an injury there, Kansas law determines if the liquor store owner is
civilly liable for the injury.
2- Characterization and other escape devices:
- A court might “characterize” any given case as sounding in tort, or in contract, or in
procedure, or as such. This characterization would determine the law that would govern the
case. If a court deemed a cause of action to sound in tort, it would apply the law of the
place of the injury / If the case involved land title question, the law of the land’s site would
be applicable. The application of the law that would be selected was almost a routine
matter.
3- The most significant relationship test:
- After it became apparent that Bealian choice of law rules is based on place of tort, place
where the contract was concluded...And that courts were using techniques of
characterization, the most significant relationship test occurred.
- The leading case that applied this test was the case of Babcock VS Jackson, in which an
automobile guest passenger brought in action in New York against the host driver for
injuries suffered due to the host’s negligence while driving in Ontario. By the New York law,
the host was liable, but an Ontario statute barred the liability. New York court broke away
from the place of the tort rule and applied its law, saying that New York state had the
“dominant contacts” with the case, because both parties were domiciled in New York, and
were in a trip that commenced in New York. Thus, the most significant relationship test
could be easily reframed as a policy-weighing approach or interest-weighing approach to
choice of law.
4- Governmental interest analysis:
- Professor Currie was the first to develop state interest analysis.
- Judges have long recognized a state’s interest in or concern with a set of facts as
justification, in 2 state and multistate situations, for applying that state’s law to the facts.
Like in Yarbrough VS Yarbrough, the judge used interest analysis to support the application
of Carolina’s law.
- The fact that a state’s court has interest in applying its law to a particular set of facts,
although might be a justification, but it is not the only reason to take into consideration nor
is it the main reason.
- Governmental interests could exist in more than one state on the same set of facts. If this
occurred, Currie believed a “true conflict” existed. One way to handle it is to let the forum
court weigh the competing governmental interests and apply the law of the state whose
 interest the court deemed greater. Currie rejected this, considering such a weighing to be
political. In a true conflict, Currie asserted that if the forum state had interest, it should apply
its law regardless of the interests of the other states. This was a combination of
governmental interest analysis and forum preference, with forum preference having the last
word. However, some courts did apply the law of the state they deemed to have greater
interest, because the concept “governmental interest” does not and cannot include within
itself all considerations that has to be taken into account in the choice of law process,
especially when the forum preference is added as an escape device.
- Currie described a case in which only one state had a governmental interest in having its
laws applied to the facts a “false conflict”, even though another state had contacts with the
facts. Currie thought that this situation should be resolved by applying the law of the only
state having governmental interest. The term false conflict does not mean that there is no
conflict of laws, it only means that there is no conflict of governmental interests.
- In cases having 3 or more state contacts, when the laws of 2 but not all 3 are the same, the
2nd restatement proposes that in this situation the case will be treated as if these contacts
were grouped in a single state. This was the situation in Reich VS Purcell; we have 3 states
who have contacts but two of the laws are the same: Missouri law set a top limit of 25.000
on death recovery, neither Ohio or California imposed such top limit. The decision was that
Ohio’s law should be applied because it had greater governmental interests than did
Missouri or California, but it was unnecessary to decide between Ohio and California’s law
because their relevant laws were the same.
- Another type of case that could arise according to Currie was an “unprovided case” in which
no state have governmental interest in applying its laws to the case. These cases should be
resolved by applying forum law.
5- Statutory construction as a basis for choice of law:
- When statutes deal expressly with choice of law, the function of the court becomes
imperative, whether the statutory rule is clear or ambiguous, mechanical or policy oriented,
wise or unwise. Reference to the statute is not only proper but it is necessary.
- Statutory construction in the choice of law in American Conflict of Laws refers to the
process of interpreting and applying statutes that govern the resolution of conflicts between
the laws of different jurisdictions. When parties include a choice-of-law clause in a contract,
it constitutes a conflict-of-laws rule. This clause provides that the contract shall be governed
by the law of a particular jurisdiction. Statutory construction involves interpreting these
choice-of-law clauses to determine which jurisdiction's law will apply to the contract. This
process aims to reduce legal uncertainty and simplify the judicial task. Additionally, the
courts may consider the interests of the various states involved in determining which law to
apply, especially in cases of accidents between citizens of different states or in contract
disputes.
- When it comes to choice of law statutes, if the forum state has an express choice of law
statute, the courts will follow it. They may first have to figure out its meaning, because most
American choice of law statutes have tended to ambiguous generality.
• Examples:
- Most early worker’s compensation acts, contained choice of law provisions. Some of them
did no more than indicate that they could have some out of state applicability in unstated
circumstances. Amendments to almost all of the acts have made the more explicit.
However, courts seem to assume that the statutes are almost irrelevant.
- A Uniform Conflict of Laws Limitation Act is clear and specific. However, the clarity of it may
be too high at cost; the act may deny application of forum statutes of limitations that are
supported only by procedural policies.
- The Federal Tort Claims act prescribed an inappropriate choice to which the courts
eventually gave a new meaning. The wording of the act was that the federal government
should be liable in tort where the “US would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the
law where the act or omission occurred”
- Even choice of law enactments framed in terms of specifically desired socioeconomic
results haven’t always worked out, sometimes because of their phrasings and sometimes
because socioeconomic standards change constantly. However, some choice of law
enactments did work, like: The Uniform Securities Act has a detailed choice of law section,
that is specific in selecting the places of particular events as providing the governing law for
particular issues. This is desirable for types of transactions controlled by this section. /
Statutes governing the validity of wills have been drafted with the purpose of sustaining
wills if they satisfy any law that reasonably controls them.
-
6- Principles of preference:
- Professor Cavers formulated the principles of preference approach to the choice of law. He
starts with the idea that the problem is one of choosing between laws and not just between
jurisdictions. His principles are stated almost as rules, each applicable to a narrow set of
facts, and courts would develop these principles over the years.
- Cavers suggested that the judicial development of principles of preference could guide
courts in resolving "true conflicts". Cavers's principles of preference involve interpreting
choice-of-law clauses in contracts, applying canons of construction to determine which
jurisdiction's law will apply, and ensuring that the chosen law is given effect The principles
of preference may involve considering the interests of the various states involved in
determining which law to apply. Cavers's principles of preference should be integrated with
other choice-of-law rules, such the minimum contacts test, to create a more comprehensive
and coherent approach to the choice of law process. The primary goal of Cavers's
principles of preference is to reduce legal uncertainty. Also Cavers hoped that his principles
of preference would become a part of the judicial process, helping to guide courts in their
decision-making, which is what happened in the New York case of Neumeier.
7- Choice influencing considerations:
- Professor Leflar proposed a list of 5 choice influencing considerations, as working basis for
choice of law decisions. Courts in a number of cases have employed them to resolve
choice of law issues. His method emphasized the importance of individualizing decisions
and choosing the better law.
8- Multistate substantive laws:
- This approach is also known as comprehensive interest analysis. In outline form, this
approach would call for a court, first to identify all relevant interests, next to review all the
identified interests and reject any that contradict “basic community policies”, finally, to
accommodate all the legitimate interests in the manner best calculated to promote them.
Eventually the applicable law would be the best rule available to resolve the case.
- Professor Mehren, envisioned the development of multistate substantive solutions in 3
situations. One situation is when a need exist to coordinate the domestic law rules of two
states that are both concerned that their rules should apply. Another is when basic
differences exist between multistate and domestic situations. The last is when a true conflict
exist between the policies of the concerned states and it is possible to develop a rule that is
a compromise.
• Theories Conclusion: The significant relationship test is the approach applied in majority
of states today. Under it, the law to be applied is that of the state whose contacts with the
facts give it the most significant relationship to the legal issue before court. Simultaneously,
 Currie was formulating an approach based on “governmental interest” of the states which
had contact with the case. Cavers over the years put together a system leading to
principles of preference based upon choice between laws rather than choice between
jurisdictions, and the laws were of course limited to the laws of the states that had
substantial contacts with the facts of the case. A little later, Leflar proposed an approach
based upon fundamental policy factors identified as choice influencing considerations. It
should be noted that all of these theories had the goal of solving all of choice of law
problems. Finally, we should mention that the constitution is violated if a court applies to a
legal issue the law of a state that has no substantial connection with the facts of the issue.
The constitutional requirement is not that the selected state have the most significant
relationship but only that it have a relationship to the facts of the case that creates a state
interest

9- Judicial eclecticism:
- It is the selection of the best element of the many different given theories to arrive at the
applicable law.
- A number of decisions still hold the Beale theory. Courts continuing down this old path
rarely engage in eclecticism. The state courts that began to move away from the old
mechanical choice of law rules are the ones that have engaged in eclecticism.
- Judicial eclecticism has diminished in recent years with most courts now relying solely on
the 2nd restatement and other courts employing Leflar’s choice influencing considerations
without reference to any other theories. Only few courts continue to engage in judicial
eclecticism.
10- Post Occurrence contacts:
- A formalistic approach would refuse to notice any contacts that came after the creation of
cause of action sued upon. Courts will often not consider post transaction events, such as
change of domicile, to be relevant to the issues in a case, but sometimes they will consider
it as relevant. The US Supreme court in Hague case indicated that such post occurrence
fact, a plaintiff’s newly acquired domicile in forum state, may be considered as significant
contact creating state interest.