What typically needs to be established for specific jurisdiction to be recognized?

For specific jurisdiction to be recognized, it is essential to establish a direct connection between the defendant's actions and the forum state. Specific jurisdiction is fundamentally based on the idea that a defendant should be held accountable in a state where they have engaged in activities that give rise to the legal claims being made against them. This means that the defendant's conduct must be purposefully directed towards the forum state, creating a substantial connection that justifies the court's jurisdiction over them.

For example, if a defendant conducts business, sells products, or engages in activities within a particular state that result in a claim arising from those activities, then specific jurisdiction can be asserted. This establishes a clear linkage between the defendant's actions and the legal issues at hand, which is a critical requirement under the principles of due process. Hence, option B effectively captures the essence of specific jurisdiction by emphasizing the necessity of a direct connection, ensuring that it is fair and reasonable for the defendant to be brought into court in that jurisdiction.