Even if a long-arm statute applies, however, a state or federal court’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is subject to federal due process standards. The Bombliss case, which follows shortly, addresses long-arm statute and due process issues arising in a context involving Internet communications. For further discussion of in personam jurisdiction issues, see the Global Business Environment box, which appears later in the chapter.


After learning of Anne’s chat room postings, the Bomblisses had blood tests done on Mohanna. The tests indicated that Mohanna had no genetic disorders. The Bomblisses later sued the Cornelsens in an Illinois court on various legal theories, including tortious interference with prospective business advantage. The various claims made by the plaintiffs centered around contentions that the defendants knowingly published false statements about Mohanna’s genetic line in order to retaliate against Eichhorn, and that, as a consequence, the plaintiffs’ negotiations with several potential puppy customers had fallen through.


The defendants asked the Illinois trial court to dismiss the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction. When the trial court granted the defendants’ request, the plaintiffs appealed to the Illinois Court of Appeals. Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, his or her personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts.