Which case established the effects test for personal jurisdiction based on intentional acts aimed at the forum state?

The effects test for personal jurisdiction, based on intentional acts aimed at the forum state, was established in the case of Calder v. Jones. This case is significant because it addressed the issue of whether a state could exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants whose actions were intended to cause harm to a particular individual residing in that state, even if the defendants were not physically present in the forum state at the time of the alleged harm.

In Calder v. Jones, the defendants were writers for a national publication who published an article that allegedly defamed a California resident. The Supreme Court ruled that because the defendants' actions were specifically directed at the plaintiff in California and they knew that their conduct would have effects in that state, jurisdiction was proper. This ruling underscored the principle that a court can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant when their intentional actions are calculated to have an effect on the forum state's residents.

Other cases listed do not focus on the effects test in the same way. For example, Burnham v. Superior Court dealt with personal jurisdiction based on physical presence in the state, while Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute centered on forum selection clauses and procedural issues related to jurisdiction without addressing the effects test. D'Arcy v. Ketchum is less