Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0873 • i ~ t concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the de- fendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or in- convenient forum. And it acts i to insure that the States through their courts, do not reach out ~ beyond the limits imposed on them 3 by their status as coequal sover- eigns in a federal system. The protection against incon- venient litigation is typically described in terms of 'reasonable- ! ness' or 'fairness.' We have said ! that the defendant's contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit 'does not offend 'traditional notions of ' fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washing- ton, supra, at 316, 66 S.Ct., a`t 158, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed, 278 (194 0). The re- lationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is 'reasonable to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there. ' 326 U. S. , at 317, 66 S. Ct. , at 158. Implicit in this emphasis on reasonableness is th_e understand- ing that the burden on the defendant, while always a'primary concern, will in an appropriate case be consider- ed'in light of other relevant factors, including the forum State's interest in .adjudicating the dispute, see McGee v. internation Life Ins. Co., - 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 7.99, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); the plaintiff's ,interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, see Kulko v. Superior Court, supra, 436 U.S., at 92, 98 S.Ct., at 1697, at least when that interest is not adquately protected by the plaintiff's power to choose the forum, ef. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 21~, n. 37, _ 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2583, n. 37, 53 L.Ed. 2d 683 (1977) ; the intQrstatejudicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of contro- versies; and the shared interest of t several States in furthering funds- mental substantive social policies, see Kulko v. Superior Court, supra, 436 U.S., at 93, 98, 98 S.Ct., at 1697, 1700. The limits imposed on state juris- diction by the Due Process Clause, in its role as a guarantor against in- convenient litigation, have been substantially relaxed over the years. ~ As we noted in McGee v. International -10- R ~4 ~e gG ? ~dc 33o S