In personal jurisdiction, what does "effects test" primarily assess?

The "effects test" primarily assesses the substantial effects of a defendant's actions in a different jurisdiction. This concept is rooted in the idea that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if their actions, even if carried out from another state, have significant consequences or effects in the forum state.

For example, if a defendant engages in conduct outside of the forum state that is intended to cause harm or has a direct impact within that state, the effects test allows a court to establish jurisdiction based on those substantial effects. This principle helps ensure that individuals and entities can't evade legal accountability simply by operating outside the state where the harm was felt.

The test emphasizes the importance of the connection between the defendant's actions and the forum state, rather than requiring the defendant to be physically present in the state or relying solely on local laws or previous case precedents. Thus, focusing on the actual ramifications of the defendant's behavior helps construct a framework for fair and just jurisdictional reach.