San Diego Law Review

Library of Congress Authority File


Document Type



This Article argues that the Court’s recent decisions have effectively revived Pennoyer’s focus on physical presence and status, at the expense of the fairness and contact considerations set forth in International Shoe, as the bases for asserting personal jurisdiction. Part II details the jurisdictional analysis under both Pennoyer and International Shoe. Part III discusses the evolution of personal jurisdiction doctrine under International Shoe. Part IV demonstrates that the Court’s recent decisions have revitalized Pennoyer’s territorially based regime, and consequently diminished the thrust of International Shoe.