PERSONAL JURISDICTION FOR ALLEGED INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT EFFECTS, MATCHED TO FORUM REGULATORY INTEREST.

This Article discusses how the Walden Court may have mischaracterized the effects test of Calder, and it explores how Calder's effects test should be applied. This Article argues that personal jurisdiction should be based primarily on forum regulatory interest, and it uses this link to apply effects test analysis in defamation situations, then in other contexts unexplored by the Walden opinion. Dram-shop liability and products-liability cases are explored as situations where personal jurisdiction should be upheld, similarly to Calder, on the basis of a plaintiff's good-faith allegation that a defendant intentionally acted to create foreseeable forum effects. To the extent courts are uncomfortable applying such effects analysis, and instead insist on additional defendant forum conduct, this Article suggests such action may be in response to the reality that a plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations almost always involve factually contested matters that, unlike a defendant's presence, cannot be determined apart from the merits of the case. This Article urges courts, however, to resist importing defendant presence-based considerations into modern personal jurisdiction analysis. Instead, courts should allow a plaintiff's goodfaith allegations of defendant-initiated effects to support jurisdiction. Such an approach is the best way to fully implement the minimum contacts approach required by International Shoe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]