Ask a law student what case stands for the proposition that a defendant needs minimum contacts
with the forum state to be sued in that state, and the answer (hopefully) will be
International
Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). Thousands of lawyers, actually hundreds of
thousands of lawyers, have been trained with the rule of
International Shoe. But for an
action in a particular state, a lawyer must be acquainted with that state’s long-arm statute.
The Massachusetts long-arm statute, 223A, § 3, allows personal jurisdiction for a potential
litigant who is transacting any business in the Commonwealth, contracting to supply services or
things in the Commonwealth, causing tortious injury in the Commonwealth, having an interest in using
or possessing real property in the Commonwealth, contracting to insure any person, property or risk
located within the Commonwealth, maintaining a domicile in this Commonwealth, etc. The
Massachusetts long-arm statue allows the state to control the number and types of cases which appear
in its courts. Obviously, it cannot run afoul of the constitutional requirements of
International Shoe and these provisions have not been found to do so.