Citations 465 U.S. 770 (more) End date 1984 | Concurrence Brennan | |
Full case name Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. Majority Rehnquist, joined by unanimous Similar Burger King Corp v Rudze, World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp v, International Shoe Co v Washington, Pennoyer v Neff, Burnham v Superior Court of | ||
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could assert personal jurisdiction over the publisher of a national magazine which published an allegedly defamatory article about a resident of another state, and where the magazine had wide circulation in that state.
Contents
Facts
Keeton was a case for defamation brought by Kathy Keeton, a New York resident and publisher of Penthouse magazine, against the nationally distributed Hustler magazine. The plaintiff chose to bring the case in New Hampshire, even though the plaintiff was not a resident there, because New Hampshire allowed six years to bring suit under that state's statute of limitations, which is longer than any other state. Also, New Hampshire's "Single Publication Rule" could increase the amount of damages the plaintiff could collect by accounting for publication in all 50 states.
Issue
The issue was whether the federal court had personal jurisdiction if the case was brought in New Hampshire, by a plaintiff from a foreign state against a nationally circulated magazine.
Opinion of the Court
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld personal jurisdiction, stating that the plaintiff in a case had never been required to have "minimum contacts" in a state to bring suit in that state and since the magazine did conduct business within the state of New Hampshire.
Other developments
Keeton was later awarded a $2 million judgment by a New Hampshire jury.
This case was decided at the same time as Calder v. Jones, which held that a state had personal jurisdiction over author or editor of an article published in a magazine widely circulated in the state the case was brought, if the claim brought was that the article was libelous about activities in the state by a resident of state. Like Keeton, Rehnquist authored a unanimous decision there. However, key differences between the cases were that Calder involved a plaintiff suing in her state of residence and she was suing the author and editor involved in the piece in addition to the newspaper itself, while Keeton involved a plaintiff suing only the magazine itself.