The defendant must do more than merely put the product into the stream of commerce, knowing that it may find its way to the forum state. Conduct showing the defendant's intent to serve the forum state's market must involve some substantial connection between the defendant and the forum state. While disclaiming the idea that foreseeability was wholly irrelevant to personal jurisdiction, these four justices required something more than the mere foreseeability that the defendant's products could injure a resident of the forum state before the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with due process. These contacts must be based on acts 'by which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.' Id. Four justices concluded that jurisdiction depends on 'whether the defendant purposefully established `minimum contacts' in the forum state' by placing products into the stream of commerce and engaging in forum-related conduct. Two views of the minimum contacts requirement split the Supreme Court in Asahi, its most recent personal jurisdiction case. Did Defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona to allow our courts to exercise jurisdiction in accord with fundamental principles of fairness as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? International Shoe Co.The jurisdictional issue thus hinges on federal law. is intended to give Arizona residents the maximum privileges permitted by the Constitution of the United States.'). Arizona will exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident litigant to the maximum extent allowed by the federal constitution. We easily resolve the issue with respect to our state constitution.

Defendant claims that no personal jurisdiction exists under either the Arizona or United States Constitution.

Iver johnson cattleman