What Is the Standard Which Must Be Met by a State In Asserting Specific Jurisdiction In the Case of a Non-Resident ?
In Kubik v. Letteri, 532 Pa. 10, 614 A.2d 1110 (1992) the Supreme Court explained that the standard that must be met by a state in asserting specific jurisdiction is that the non-resident defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state and the assertion of personal jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985).
Minimum contacts are determined by whether the "'defendant's conduct and his connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.'" Kubik, 532 Pa. at 17, 614 A.2d at 1114 (quoting Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474).
Critical to that analysis is "the determination that the defendant purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum and purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws." Id. at 18, 614 A.2d at 1114.