McGee is big ins co vs little policy holder - this case is apparently on equal footing at least so far as Winter, apparently prior individual owner, would be concerned. In Kulko v. Superior Court , the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the California Supreme Court allowing personal jurisdiction when the defendant only purchased an airline ticket for his daughter so that she could go live with her mother. Again this a very subjective question with the answer resting on the whim of the court answering it. If the defendants in our case have never done business in Minnesota in all the years of their existence, it is not unreasonable to say that it would be unfair to subject them to suit there. The test for minimum contacts is a difficult one.
Minimum contacts promotes federalism.
It gives states their sovereignty while also keeping them in check. And by having minimum contacts, it helps to make the playing fields a little more even among the different states. People will have a better idea of what is and what is not going to allow a state jurisdiction. The defendants in Duffney had enough contacts with the forum state to have jurisdiction and the defendants should have anticipated the possibility of being haled into court there.