Calder v. Jones
- Decided
- March 20, 1984
- Docket
- 82-1401
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,198 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that reporter and editor of allegedly defamatory magazine article were subject to personal jurisdiction — SITQ E.U., Inc. v. Reata Restaurants, Inc. (2003)
- holding that employees’ “contacts with [the'forum] are not to be judged according to their employer’s activities there” — Eplus Technology, Incorporated v. Patricia Aboud, A/K/A Carole Girard, and Daniel Jacques Akerib Jean-Marie Chartuny George Bernachawy John Doe (2002)
- holding that an intentional tort knowingly directed at a forum resident satisfies the minimum contacts test — Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting Of Birmingham, Inc. (1997)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Shirley Jones brought suit in California Superior Court claiming that she had been libeled in an article written and edited by petitioners in Florida. The article was published in a national magazine with a large circulation in California. Petitioners were served with process by mail in Florida and caused special appearances to be entered on their behalf, moving to quash the service of process for lack of per [*785] sonal jurisdiction. The Superior Court granted the motion on the ground that First Amendment concerns weighed against an assertion of jurisdiction otherwise proper under the Due Process Clause. The California Court of Appeal reversed, rejecting the suggestion that First Amendment considerations enter into the jurisdictional analysis. We now affirm.
Respondent lives and works in California. She and her husband brought this suit against the National Enquirer, Inc., its local distributing company, and petitioners for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm. [1]
Statutes cited
Cite this
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.