The Boundary of Personal Jurisdiction: The 'Effects Test' and the Protection of Crazy Horse's Name

Abstract

Personal jurisdiction affects dignity. While most attorneys consider personal jurisdiction a strategic device, personal jurisdiction can have a profound impact on the dignity of both plaintiffs and defendants.

This paper studies the boundary of personal jurisdiction and its affect on the parties' dignity by examining the Crazy Horse litigation in which Crazy Horse's descendants tried to prevent his name from being used on malt liquor and the "effects test," which the court used to find personal jurisdiction over the defendants. This paper first discusses the current Supreme Court view on personal jurisdiction, and it examines the effects test, which the federal courts have used to take the boundary of personal jurisdiction to its limit. It then discusses the Crazy Horse litigation and the clash of cultures and laws involved in that case. Finally, it evaluates the current Supreme Court rules on personal jurisdiction, the effects test, and the analysis of personal jurisdiction in the Crazy Horse litigation. It also presents this author's views on the boundary of personal jurisdiction. This author believes that there should be minimal constraints on personal jurisdiction under the due process clause that protect defendants from overreaching by a state but that allow plaintiffs to rectify wrongs done to them.

Keywords: personal jurisdiction, indian law, courts, effects test