Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Revell v. Lidov

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionInternet Defamationpersonal jurisdictiongeneral jurisdictionspecific jurisdictioninternetwebsite interactivity

Facts

Hart Lidov, a Massachusetts resident, wrote an article accusing Oliver "Buck" Revell of complicity in a conspiracy and coverup relating to the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and posted it on an internet bulletin board maintained by Columbia University's School of Journalism. Lidov had never conducted business in Texas, had never meaningfully been there, and his uncontroverted affidavit stated that he did not know Revell lived in Texas when he posted the article. Columbia, a New York institution, operated a website through which users could post and read material on the bulletin board, and other parts of the site allowed subscriptions, advertising purchases, and electronic applications. Revell, a Texas resident, claimed reputational and emotional injury in Texas and sued both defendants there.

Issue

Whether Texas courts could exercise general jurisdiction over Columbia based on its website, and whether Texas courts could exercise specific jurisdiction over Columbia and Lidov in a defamation action arising from an article posted on Columbia's internet bulletin board. More specifically, the court asked whether the defendants had purposefully established minimum contacts with Texas consistent with due process.

Rule

A forum may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the forum by establishing minimum contacts there and jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. General jurisdiction requires substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts, and a website's mere accessibility or limited online dealings with forum residents does not by itself satisfy that standard. For specific jurisdiction in an internet defamation case, the court looks to the contact out of which the claim arises and applies both website interactivity principles and Calder's effects analysis; the plaintiff's residence and injury in the forum alone are insufficient, and the allegedly tortious conduct must be expressly aimed at the forum so that the forum is a focal point of the article and the harm, with the defendant chargeable with knowledge that the conduct is directed there.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Harbor Media, a Maine nonprofit, runs a website that lets users nationwide buy digital magazine subscriptions, submit advertising requests, and send admissions-style applications for a summer journalism program. Over the last two years, 22 residents of Arizona bought subscriptions through the site, but Blue Harbor has no office, employees, bank accounts, or in-person operations in Arizona.

If an Arizona plaintiff sues Blue Harbor in Arizona on a claim unrelated to those subscriptions, is general personal jurisdiction most likely proper?

Explanation. General jurisdiction requires contacts so substantial, continuous, and systematic that they approximate doing business in the forum, not merely doing business with forum residents. The majority held that a website's accessibility everywhere, plus relatively small numbers of subscriptions and other online features, falls far short of that standard. Choice A matches that reasoning. Choices B and C overstate the significance of website access and limited online commerce, and D is too absolute because the opinion did not say internet activity could never support general jurisdiction.