According to Pennoyer v. Neff, what is required for in personam jurisdiction?

In the case of Pennoyer v. Neff, the requirement for in personam jurisdiction centers around the notion that a court can exercise jurisdiction over an individual or entity based primarily on their presence or participation in the forum state. The correct answer highlights two key aspects: service of process in the state and voluntary appearance by the defendant.

When a defendant is served with legal documents while physically present in the state, the court gains jurisdiction because the defendant is subject to the laws and authority of that state. Additionally, if a defendant voluntarily appears in court, they can submit to the jurisdiction of that court even if they were not served in the state. This principle emphasizes the importance of a defendant's relationship to the state, either through physical presence or active participation in the legal proceedings.

The other options do not encompass the full scope of in personam jurisdiction as articulated in Pennoyer v. Neff. While the physical presence of the defendant is relevant, jurisdiction arises from service or voluntary appearance, rather than solely from being physically present. Jurisdiction over property relates to in rem jurisdiction but does not provide the complete framework for in personam jurisdiction. Furthermore, the establishment of a business entity in the state is not a requirement for in personam jurisdiction, meaning that simply