Due Process Requirements for Non-resident Defendants in the United States Personal Jurisdiction - In Comparison to International Jurisdiction in Korea

• Published in: 가천법학, 10(1) pp. 85 - 110
• Main Author: 최영란
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 법학연구소 31.03.2017
• Subjects: 법학
• ISSN: 2713-8151; 2713-816X
• DOI: 10.15335/GLR.2017.10.1.003

Regarding personal jurisdiction over foreign or non-resident defendants as well as plaintiffs, especially in intentional tort cases, the United States Supreme Court has declined to render jurisdiction unless sufficient connection of the defendants with the forum state has been established. The United State Supreme Court in Walden v. Fiore dismissed the intentional tort claim filed by airline passengers for lack of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident police officer, who has no minimum contacts with the forum state, where the plaintiff's residence is located, for the officer's unconstitutional conduct done out of the forum state. This paper is drafted to find out why due process is significantly emphasized in the analysis of personal jurisdiction in a civil suit of the United States. Whether to render personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is not simply decided by a civil procedure rule or statute of a forum state. Even if a court may establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant by the laws of forum state, the court still has to go through the constitutional due process test under the federal Constitution to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The due process requirement is to protect a defendant being sued in a remote, inconvenient forum. This paper reviews the due process principles of the United States, by analyzing how the due process requirement is applied to personal jurisdiction analysis in civil litigation, especially in the case of Walden, and it briefly compares the international jurisdiction principle in Korea. KCI Citation Count: 1