“Minimum contacts” can be established in one of two ways, either generally or specifically for lawsuits based on the forum-related activities: General jurisdiction is based on an out-of-state defendant’s “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum state, and does not require that the claim be related to those contacts. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, is premised on something of a quid pro quo: in exchange for “benefitting” from some purposive conduct directed at the forum state, a party is deemed to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction for claims related to those contacts. (see Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1078)" Specific jurisdiction exists over a nonresident defendant “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to’ those activities.” For jurisdictional purposes, the court must evaluate “[e]ach defendant’s contacts with the forum State . . . individually.” OMI Holdings, 149 F.3d at 1091 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)). 22Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790 (1984). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_16-cv-02312/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_16-cv-02312-1.pdf 14 §704-A. Persons subject to jurisdiction 1. Declaration of purpose. It is declared, as a matter of legislative determination, that the public interest demands that the State provide its citizens with an effective means of redress against nonresident persons who, through certain significant minimal contacts with this State, incur obligations to citizens entitled to the state's protection. This legislative action is deemed necessary because of technological progress which has substantially increased the flow of commerce between the several states resulting in increased interaction between persons of this State and persons of other states. This section, to insure maximum protection to citizens of this State, shall be applied so as to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution, 14th amendment. [PL 1975, c. 770, §80 (NEW).] 2. Causes of action. Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated in this section, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec704-A.html #personaljurisdiction #minimumContact #jurisdiction

Posted by MalikaDulce at 2020-10-24 06:08:41 UTC