← All Authorities
United States Leading Case jurisdiction

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v Woodson

444 U.S. 286 (1980)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year1980
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Mere foreseeability that a product may reach the forum state is insufficient for personal jurisdiction; the defendant must purposefully avail itself of that forum.

Key Principle

Foreseeability that a product might end up in the forum state is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction; the defendant must purposefully avail itself of the forum.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v Woodson and how it applies to your situation.

Explain World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v W...