How does "general jurisdiction" differ from "specific jurisdiction"?

General jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction are foundational concepts in personal jurisdiction that pertain to the extent to which a court can assert authority over a defendant.

General jurisdiction refers to a court's ability to hear any case involving a defendant based on their sufficiently pervasive connections to the forum state, typically established through domicile or substantial business activities. This means that a defendant can be sued in that forum regardless of where the events leading to the lawsuit occurred. For example, if a corporation has its principal place of business in a state, it can be subject to general jurisdiction there, allowing for a wide range of lawsuits to be filed against it.

On the other hand, specific jurisdiction arises when a court's authority is tied to particular actions or contacts that the defendant has with the forum state. This jurisdiction is often based on the "minimum contacts" standard, meaning that the defendant must have engaged in activities that have a substantial connection to the forum, such as transacting business or committing a tort within the state. Therefore, specific jurisdiction is more limited and is directly linked to specific events that give rise to the legal action.

The distinction is important: general jurisdiction provides a broader scope of authority, applying to different types of claims based on overall presence in the state, while specific jurisdiction