This is edited from the link given by Weiss at the top of the thread, and is very good, and I thought should be put here.
It is laid out differently, and edited a little for clarity.
I am going to work on editing it so the cites are linked to the cases.
By Craig Smith:
Jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to decide a case, ie., to render a decision that will be recognized and enforced by authorities and other courts.
Jurisdiction is of two types: Subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties.
A court must have both types of jurisdiction before it has jurisdiction to decide the case.
Jurisdiction Over Persons or Things
In personam, (or personal jurisdiction) is the power of a court to adjudicate the personal legal rights of parties properly brought before it.
Requires that the court not only have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, but also that it have jurisdiction over each party to the action.
Due process of law requires appearance or service of process (notice of pendency of the lawsuit) before the defendant can be personally bound by any judgment.
A person is subject to in personam jurisdiction on any of the following theories:
(1) Presence, i.e., being served with a copy of the summons and complaint while physically present in the forum jurisdiction. The physical presence of a defendant in the forum is a sufficient basis for acquiring jurisdiction over him, no matter how brief his stay might be.
(Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. (5 Otto) 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877).
(2) Domicile (residence) alone is a basis for exercising jurisdiction over an absent domiciliary.
(Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940).)
I.e., a person may always be sued for all claims, regardless of where they arise, in their state of permanent residence or in the case of a corporation, the state in which it is incorporated.
(3) Consent to personal jurisdiction.
A defendant who has not been personally served in the jurisdiction can nevertheless voluntarily appear and submit himself to jurisdiction.
In such cases defendant is said to have "consented" to jurisdiction.
Can consent be obtained in advance of any lawsuit being filed?
Can consent be implied?
Hess v. Palowski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091 (1927) says yes.
A state can legislate that a nonresident motorist using its highways be deemed to have appointed a local official as his agent to receive service of process in any action growing out of the use of the vehicle within the state.
However, the state must provide actual notice to the nonresident defendant.
(4) Minimum Contacts.
Having sufficient dealings or affiliations with the forum jurisdiction which make it reasonable to require the defendant to defend a lawsuit brought in the forum state.
(Int'l Shoe)
Hence, a defendant who has never set foot in California may nevertheless be subject to valid personal jurisdiction so as to be compelled to defend a lawsuit in California provided that he has minimum contacts with the forum state such that compelling him to appear and defend in the forum does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
(International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).)
I.e., the due process clause does not permit a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over an individual or corporation with which the state has no contacts, ties or relations.
Minimum Contacts - The Four Principles of International Shoe
1) Jurisdiction is permissible when the defendant's activity in the forum is continuous and systematic and the cause of action is related to that activity.
2) Sporadic or casual activity of the defendant in the forum does not justify assertion of jurisdiction on a cause of action unrelated to that forum activity.
3) A court may assert jurisdiction over a defendant whose continuous activities in the forum are unrelated to the cause of action sued upon when the defendant's contacts are sufficiently substantial and of such a nature as to make the state's assertion of jurisdiction reasonable. ("general jurisdiction")
4) Even a defendant whose activity in the forum is sporadic, or consists only of a single act, may be subject to the jurisdiction of the forum's courts when the cause of action arises out of that activity or act. ["specific jurisdiction"]
(Friedenthal § 3.10)
Helicopteros Nationales De Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, (1984) recognizes a distinction between "general" and "specific" jurisdiction.
In order to assert general jurisdiction there must be substantial forum related activity on the part of the defendant.
The threshold for satisfying minimum contacts is higher than in specific jurisdiction cases.
(Friedenthal 3.10)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed. 1283 (1958) held that the "minimum contacts" a defendant must have with the forum state must be in the form of a purposeful affiliation on the part of the defendant.
I.e., jurisdiction is impermissible where the defendant's contact with the forum is not purposeful.
(Friedenthal § 3.10)
"Long -arm" statutes (a reference to the authorization to "reach out" beyond the borders of a state) predicate jurisdiction over nonresidents upon a variety of contacts with the forum, including the transaction of business in the state, the commission of certain acts within the state, e.g., the commission of a tort, ownership of property, entering into a contract.
(Friedenthal § 3.12)
California's long-arm statute is short and simple, yet it authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the broadest extent that due process will permit as set forth in the International Shoe, supra, case.
A court may also take jurisdiction over a thing as opposed to a person.
In rem jurisdiction is the power of a court to deal with a thing (e.g. a parcel of land, an automobile, a ship) and to determine its status in relation to the legal rights of all persons known and unknown.
I.e., in a proceeding in rem the court exercises its power to determine the status of property and the determination of the court is binding with respect to all possible interest holders in that property.
Quasi-in-rem jurisdiction is similar to in rem.
In a proceeding
quasi-in-rem, the court renders a judgment for or against a person but recovery is limited to the value of property that is within the jurisdiction and thus subject to the court's authority.
The dispute that gives rise to an action
quasi-in-rem may be related to the property or unrelated to it.
In an action
quasi-in-rem, the property may be used to satisfy any judgment in the action.
The Int'l. Shoe standards of fairness and substantial justice that govern in personam actions are applicable to in rem actions as well .
(Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)