| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | A guy loses contol of his Honda motorcycle in CA. He is injured, wife is killed. Asahi never contemplated that selling tire valves to Cheng Shin would subject it to suit in CA. |
| Posture: | Product liability suit in state court against the tire tube manufacturer. Cheng Shin (the tire firm) fils a third-party complaint against Asahi who made the valve. Initial claims against Chenh Shin and others settle, so we're left with just Cheng Shin's indemnity claim against Asahi. Asahi moves to quash service of the summons, saying this is inconsistent with due process. Court denies the motion saying that if you do business on an international scale, you need to expect to defend your productson an international scale. |
| Issue: | Does the mere awareness on the part of a foreign defendant that its products might reach a forum state in the stream of commerce count as "minimum contacts" for personal jurisdiction purposes? |
| Holding: | No. Reversed. |
| Rule: | Again with the minimum contacts, only we are extra cautious with international things. |
| Reasoning: | So we have the rule of minimum contacts, and the list of things to weigh. The plaintiff has hardly any interest in Asahi, and CA has pretty much no interest, since the plaintiff isn't even a CA person. |
| Dicta: | Stevens, concurring: You could resolve this case just by looking at World-Wide VW and seeing that this exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable and unfair. |