Dailey v. Popma [1]

North Carolina resident Jack Dailey filed a defamation suit against Donald Popma after Popma allegedly criticized him in Internet postings. According to court documents, Dailey claimed that Popma and co-defendant R. W. Beavers accused him of being a crook, a liar, and the "equivalent" of a child molester, among other things.

Popma, a Georgia resident, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the North Carolina state court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. He stated that he had resided in North Carolina until July 2005, but had no contact with the state after that. Popma noted that he wrote the disputed postings after leaving the state. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed [2]. The court rejected Dailey's argument that the postings' effects in North Carolina were sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the Calder "effects" test.  See Calder v. Jones [3], 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The court reasoned that such a standard would eliminate the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction from all cases involving defamation on the Internet. Instead, the court held that a plaintiff must show that the defendant had an "intent to target" the forum state in order to be sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

The case against Beavers appears to be still pending.