Peter J. Schaffer, et al. v. Joey Long

This Court has stated that while the requirements for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction are born out of rights provided to Defendants by the Constitution of the United States, a defendant may waive that right. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S 694, 703 (1982). Courts have developed tests to determine whether a defendant has waived the right and the extent of such waiver in terms of the scope of appellate review. However, this Court has never weighed in on this matter, and therefore the jurisdictions are not uniform, which has resulted in certain defendants being allowed less constitutional protection based on the jurisdiction in which they are sued. The question presented therefore, is: 1. Does a full litigation of the merits of a personal jurisdictional challenge sufficiently preserve the issue for full review on appeal? This Court has held that a court may exercise specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only if there is “an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or occurrence that takes place in the forum state,” and that, “[w]hen there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017) (quotation marks and brackets omitted).