<P> In the instant case, the Court's majority chose to create a new doctrine, while still adhering to a "presence" rationale . The basic formulation is: a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out - of - state defendant, so long as that defendant has "sufficient minimum contacts" with the forum state, from which the complaint arises, such that the exercise of jurisdiction "will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice ..." See 326 U.S. 310 (1940). </P> <P> The court broke down the types of contact that a defendant can have with a state into "casual" contact and "systematic and continuous" contact . In cases with only casual contact, the claim must be related to the contact in order for the state to have jurisdiction . Casual contact is not a basis for bringing unrelated claims . Systematic and continuous contact allows for both claims related to the contact and unrelated claims . </P> <P> It was and remains a broad doctrine . It eventually allowed states to create "long arm" statutes and responded to the actualities of the national market of the United States . Defendants had often avoided legal responsibilities by "scampering" from the state of occurrence and not being available for service of process . This case changed that to some extent, though the "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" are drawn from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Aristotle's notions of justice . The doctrine of International Shoe is broad, but the Court has recognized that it has limits, nevertheless . </P>

Traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice