Opinion ID: 2032108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Minimum Contacts Test.

Text: It is well settled that a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant satisfies due process only if the defendant has certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional `notions of fair play' and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 343, 85 L.Ed. 278, 283 (1940)). The `minimum contacts' test . . . is not susceptible of mechanical application; rather, the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite `affiliating circumstances' are present. Kulko v. California Super. Ct., 436 U.S. 84, 92, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1697, 56 L.Ed.2d 132, 141 (1978) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1235, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1293 (1958)). In determining whether sufficient contacts exist, this court has traditionally applied the following five-factor test, placing greatest importance on the first three factors: (1) the quantity of the contacts; (2) the nature and quality of the contacts; (3) the source and connection of the cause of action with those contacts; (4) the interest of the forum state; and (5) the convenience of the parties. Larsen v. Scholl, 296 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Iowa 1980). [T]he critical focus in any jurisdictional analysis must be on the relationship among the defendant, the forum and the litigation. ... This tripartite relationship is defined by the defendant's contacts with the forum state, not by defendant's contacts with residents of the forum. Meyers v. Kallestead, 476 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Iowa 1991) (quoting West Am. Ins. Co. v. Westin, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 676, 678-79 (Minn. 1983)).