Personal jurisdiction and service of process are legal technicalities and are, therefore, subject to interpretation. Attempts to avoid being forced to engage in litigation in a forum that may be inconvenient or burdensome are a legal maneuver that are recognized as proper under the Professional Code of Professional Responsibility and an attorney's failure to properly dispute the validity of service would be considered unethical behavior (American Bar Association). The United States Supreme Court held that the defendant, National Enquirer, was subject to service of process and, therefore, subject to the personal jurisdiction of the California courts by virtue of the fact that the Enquirer had significant circulation in California, that the plaintiff, Shirley Jones, resided in California, and any harm suffered by the Ms. Jones would be suffered in California. The Supreme Court's decision opened the road for the plaintiff, Shirley Jones, to pursue her libel claim against the National Enquirer and also widened the application of the "minimum contacts" test in determining personal jurisdiction. Calder now sets as the test whether a defendant's action is an intentional attempt which is expressly aimed at the forum state with the knowledge that the harm...

In the internet age the holding in Calder is considered by many legal analysts as opening the door for litigants to pursue action against owners of internet sites but, most importantly, it has eased the burden on plaintiffs to establish minimum contacts in order to invoke the personal jurisdiction of the federal courts (Tibbitts, 1991). Some legal experts have been critical of Calder but, for the moment, it remains good law and for Shirley Jones it allowed her action against the National Enquirer to go forward.