This is an important decision, called Heidle v. The Prospect Reef Resort, Ltd. and reported by the fine Internet Cases website. Read Evan Brown’s treatment. The bottom line: The mere fact that someone has an Internet website in a given jurisdiction doesn’t mean that you pull out the well-known analysis in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. and start figuring whether that website is passive,” “active,” or “interactive.”
Not if it’s just a personal injury case, as it was in Heidle.
In other words, the widely held (not widely held by lawyers with an Internet practice but among others) belief that a Web presence gives rise to essentially world-wide jurisdiction for almost any other thing takes another hit. Not surprising, because the issue of personal jurisdiction is a constitutional one. Some of the Constitution must still be left.