Revell v. Lidov
317 F.3d 467 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant in an internet defamation case, the defendant's online activity must be expressly aimed at the forum state; merely posting an article on a globally accessible website is insufficient if the content does not target or focus on that state.
Facts:
- Hart G.W. Lidov, a resident of Massachusetts, wrote a lengthy article concerning the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
- The article accused Oliver “Buck” Revell, then the Associate Deputy Director of the FBI, of complicity in a government conspiracy and cover-up related to the bombing.
- Specifically, the article alleged that Revell, having advance knowledge of the attack, ensured his son did not take the doomed flight.
- Lidov had never been to Texas for business and was unaware that Revell resided there when he wrote the article.
- Lidov posted the article on an internet bulletin board, which was part of a website maintained by Columbia University's School of Journalism in New York.
- The bulletin board allowed any member of the public to post and read works, making Lidov's article viewable worldwide over the internet.
- At the time of the events giving rise to the lawsuit, Revell was a resident of Texas.
Procedural Posture:
- Oliver Revell sued Hart Lidov and Columbia University for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, a federal trial court.
- Both defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
- The district court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing Revell's claims.
- Revell, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Lidov and Columbia University as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court in Texas have specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state author and university for an allegedly defamatory article posted on a university-hosted website, when the article does not reference the plaintiff's Texas activities, was not aimed at a Texas audience, and the author was unaware the plaintiff resided in Texas?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Higginbotham
No. A federal court in Texas lacks personal jurisdiction because the defendants did not purposefully direct their conduct toward Texas. The court first determined that general jurisdiction over Columbia University was not appropriate, as its website contacts with Texas were not 'continuous and systematic' enough to approximate physical presence. For specific jurisdiction, the court applied the 'effects' test from Calder v. Jones to the internet context. It held that for jurisdiction to be proper, the defendant's tortious conduct must be 'expressly aimed' at the forum state. Here, the article made no reference to Texas, did not concern Revell's activities in Texas, and was not sourced from Texas. Lidov did not even know Revell lived in Texas. Therefore, Texas was not the 'focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered,' distinguishing this case from Calder. The global accessibility of an internet post does not, on its own, establish sufficient minimum contacts with every forum where the plaintiff may reside.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the application of the Calder 'effects' test to personal jurisdiction in the internet age, particularly for defamation claims. It establishes that the foreseeability of harm in a forum state is not enough; there must be evidence of 'express aiming' or purposeful targeting of the forum state's audience. The decision prevents the internet's global reach from creating universal personal jurisdiction, requiring a more direct link between the defendant's conduct and the specific forum. This ruling provides a crucial limitation on jurisdiction, ensuring that individuals and entities are not haled into court in any state where their online content might be read and cause injury, unless they have intentionally directed their activities there.
Unlock the full brief for Revell v. Lidov