[6] Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party who wishes to object to the court's jurisdiction must first sign a clause stating that they agree on the matter and will follow all laws/ rules imposed by the state and/or country, or lose the ability to raise such an objection.
(The mere presence of a contract is not enough to establish specific jurisdiction – Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz—something else is needed, maybe if there had been subsequent deliveries.)
On the other hand, if one were to sue the Florida orange grower in Alabama for some matter other than that contract, the court would have to determine whether it could exercise general jurisdiction.
In Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall,[8] a helicopter crash caused the death of four Americans in Peru.
Justice Brennan wrote for four justices who felt that the rule should apply because the party was purposefully availing himself of the benefits of being in the state at that time, and that the rule was fair under modern standards because it was well known, therefore putting defendants on notice of their susceptibility to suit in a state if physically present.
The ninth vote, by Justice Stevens, agreed that jurisdiction was proper, but did not endorse either Scalia's or Brennan's test.
The U.S. Congress has enacted legislation which declares internet domain names to be property for the purposes of such jurisdiction.