Why is the substantiality of the contact evaluated in personal jurisdiction cases?

The substantiality of the contact in personal jurisdiction cases is evaluated primarily to ensure that the relationship between the defendant's actions and the forum state is significant enough to support jurisdiction. This principle is rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be sufficient connections or "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum state. The purpose of examining the substantiality of these contacts is to establish that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being brought to court in that particular state.

A mere casual or isolated contact with the state would not suffice; there must be a meaningful engagement or presence that justifies the state's assertion of jurisdiction. This could involve the defendant conducting business, having significant property, or other activities that have a direct impact on the forum state. The key is that the defendant's actions must be purposefully directed towards the state in question, thus making it fair and just to require them to answer for their actions in that state's courts.

While aspects such as financial resources or compliance with regulations may be relevant in different legal contexts, they do not pertain directly to the jurisdictional inquiry focused on the relationship between the defendant's conduct and the state where the legal action is brought. Additionally, formal