Which factor is NOT part of the minimum contacts test according to International Shoe?

The minimum contacts test, originating from the case International Shoe Co. v. Washington, assesses whether it is appropriate for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on their connections to the forum state. The key components of this test include purposeful availment, litigation relatedness, and reasonableness.

Purposeful availment refers to the defendant's deliberate engagement with the forum state, ensuring that they have established a sufficient connection that justifies being brought into its courts. Litigation relatedness examines whether the legal claims arise out of or are connected to the defendant's activities in the state. The reasonableness aspect assesses whether exercising jurisdiction would be fair and just considering the circumstances.

In contrast, the duration of residency in the state is not a factor explicitly articulated in the minimum contacts test. While a defendant’s residency can influence jurisdiction in some cases, it is not a standard element of the minimum contacts analysis; instead, the focus is on the nature and extent of the defendant's contacts with the forum state, regardless of their physical presence or length of residence. This distinction confirms that option C is not a part of the minimum contacts test.