Calder vs. Jones

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 189
  • Published : September 13, 2010
Open Document
Text Preview
Calder V. Jones
In the case of Calder V. Jones, actress Shirley Jones sued the National Enquirer and specifically its editor, Calder, for libel (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) Jones filed her suit in California courts and the defendants are based in Florida (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) Calder argued that the case should not be brought in California. The case, Calder V. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, specifically decided the ability of California to hold jurisdiction over this case. The Issue

The issue in Calder V. Jones is whether California held personal jurisdiction over the case filed. The defendants’ business is based in Florida and the complainant resides in California (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) The basis of filing in California is the National Enquirer sells a large portion of their papers in California (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) The issue then is whether or not enough papers were sold in California to show jurisdiction in that state. The Rule of Law

The California court dismissed the claim on the basis that it impeded on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) The California Court of Appeals ruled and the Supreme Court upheld that hearing the case in California does not concern First Amendment rights and the exposure of the article within the state of claim is the basis for hearing the case in California (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) The rule of law stated is the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause states that personal jurisdiction over a defendant is held in any state where the defendant has minimum contact (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) The Outcome

According to the ruling, the article reached a minimum level of contact within the state of claim to allow an assertion of personal jurisdiction (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) Furthermore, it is the opinion of the court that First Amendment rights do not factor into decisions of personal jurisdiction (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984.) Therefore, the case was allowed to be heard...
tracking img