The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal
judgment against a nonresident defendant. Kulko v. California
Superior Court,
436 U.S. 84, 91 (1978). A judgment rendered in violation
of due process is void in the rendering State and is not
entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v.
Neff,
95 U.S. 714, 732 -733 (1878). Due process requires that
the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, Mullane
v. Central Hanover Trust Co.,
339 U.S. 306, 313 -314 (1950), and be subject to the
personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co.
v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310 (1945). In the present case, it is not
contended that notice was inadequate; the only question
is whether these particular petitioners were subject to
the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts.
As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today,
a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum
contacts" between the defendant and the forum State. International
Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 316. The concept of minimum
contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but
[444 U.S.
286, 292] distinguishable, functions.
It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating
in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure
that the States, through their courts, do not reach out
beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal
sovereigns in a federal system.
The protection against inconvenient litigation is
typically described in terms of "reasonableness" or "fairness."
We have said that the defendant's contacts with the forum
State must be such that maintenance of the suit "does not
offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra,
at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer,
311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940). The relationship between the
defendant and the forum must be such that it is "reasonable
. . . to require the corporation to defend the particular
suit which is brought there."
326 U.S., at 317 . Implicit in this emphasis on reasonableness
is the understanding that the burden on the defendant, while
always a primary concern, will in an appropriate case be
considered in light of other relevant factors, including
the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute,
see McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.,
355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957); the plaintiff's interest in
obtaining convenient and effective relief, see Kulko v.
California Superior Court, supra, at 92, at least when that
interest is not adequately protected by the plaintiff's
power to choose the forum, cf. Shaffer v. Heitner,
433 U.S. 186, 211 , n. 37 (1977); the interstate judicial
system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution
of controversies; and the shared interest of the several
States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies,
see Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 93, 98.
[World-Wide
Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)]