Ask a law student what case stands for the proposition that a defendant needs minimum contacts with the forum state to be sued in that state, and the answer (hopefully) will be International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). Thousands of lawyers, actually hundreds of thousands of lawyers, have been trained with the rule of International Shoe. But for an action in a particular state, a lawyer must be acquainted with that state’s long-arm statute. The Massachusetts long-arm statute, 223A, § 3, allows personal jurisdiction for a potential litigant who is transacting any business in the Commonwealth, contracting to supply services or things in the Commonwealth, causing tortious injury in the Commonwealth, having an interest in using or possessing real property in the Commonwealth, contracting to insure any person, property or risk located within the Commonwealth, maintaining a domicile in this Commonwealth, etc. The Massachusetts long-arm statue allows the state to control the number and types of cases which appear in its courts. Obviously, it cannot run afoul of the constitutional requirements of International Shoe and these provisions have not been found to do so.
The attorneys serve the entire state of Massachusetts in addition to affiliating with lawyers in other states to handle cases outside of Massachusetts.
Boston Attorneys Win Highest Injury Verdict in Massachusetts in 2011 & 2012.