What must be proven for a court to establish specific jurisdiction in a case?

To establish specific jurisdiction, it is crucial to demonstrate that the harm or injury in question directly arises from the defendant's activities within the forum state. This means that the defendant must have engaged in conduct that creates a substantial connection to the state, which leads to the legal action being brought against them. The concept of specific jurisdiction is focused on the relationship between the defendant's actions and the forum, highlighting the need for a direct link between those actions and the plaintiff's claims.

By proving that the harm occurred as a result of the defendant's activities in the state, the court can conclude that it is reasonable to bring the case in that particular jurisdiction. This aligns with the due process requirement of fair play and substantial justice, ensuring that it is not unfair to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the state’s courts.

The other options do not fulfill the necessary criteria for establishing specific jurisdiction. While a defendant being a resident of the state or having visited the state may give rise to general jurisdiction or other jurisdictional questions, they do not specifically capture the core requirement of a direct connection between the defendant's conduct and the source of the plaintiff's claim. Similarly, the residency of the plaintiff does not determine the existence of specific jurisdiction over the defendant.