Connection lost
Server error
Calder v. Jones Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Florida-based newspaper employees wrote a libelous article about a California celebrity. The Supreme Court held that California courts had personal jurisdiction because the defendants’ intentional conduct was aimed at California, and the “brunt of the harm” was suffered there, creating sufficient minimum contacts.
Legal Significance: This case established the “effects test” for specific personal jurisdiction, allowing a court to assert jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant whose intentional, out-of-state conduct was expressly aimed at the forum state and caused foreseeable harm to a plaintiff within that state.
Calder v. Jones Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent Shirley Jones, a professional entertainer residing and working in California, sued petitioners, a reporter (South) and an editor (Calder) for the National Enquirer, for libel. Both petitioners were residents of Florida. South wrote and Calder edited an allegedly defamatory article about Jones from Florida. The article concerned Jones’s activities in California and was based on information obtained from California sources via telephone calls from Florida. The National Enquirer, a Florida corporation, had its largest circulation in California, selling approximately 600,000 copies there weekly. Jones filed suit in California Superior Court, alleging she suffered injury to her reputation and emotional distress in California. Petitioners, who had minimal other contacts with California, moved to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing their actions occurred in Florida. The California Court of Appeal found jurisdiction was proper, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause permit a California court to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident newspaper employees whose intentional, allegedly tortious actions in Florida caused injury to a California resident within California?
Yes. The Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal, holding that California Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Due Process Clause permit a California court to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident newspaper employees whose intentional, allegedly tortious actions in Florida caused injury to a California resident within California?
Conclusion
Calder v. Jones created the influential "effects test," a significant tool for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercita
Legal Rule
Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is proper when the defendant has Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Legal Analysis
The Court applied the "effects test" to find that personal jurisdiction was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for