What is the difference between specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction under general US laws?

Answer 1

General jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction is somewhat related to the Minimum contacts analysis put forth by International Shoe.

A state that has general jurisdiction over a Defendant, either a person or a corporation, has the power over the Defendant for any claim arising in the world (meaning the claim does not have to have a transactional relationship with the forum (court asserting personal jurisdiction)). However, to have general jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have systematic and continuous contacts with the state.

Other points to remember for general jurisdiction:

1) a state always has general jurisdiction over a corporation that is headquartered there (i.e the state has power to bring the defendant, that has its headquarters there, into court for a claim arising outside of the state.)

2) a state always has general jurisdiction over a person that is domiciled in that state (i.e the state has power to bring the defendant, that has its domiciled there, into court for a claim arising outside of the state.)

Specific Jurisdiction requires a transactional relationship (i.e the claims arises out of the Defendants in state activities (transactional relationship)), but only requires minimal minimum contacts, not systematic and continuous.

Specific jurisdiction only allows the court power to adjudicate claims over the defendant arising out its in state activity.

Answer 2

Specific Jurisprudence means to clearly define a particular clause in law through rulings. General jurisprudence can relate to an the entire law though rulings.

Let's take an example of a law:

Assault:

As clearly defined below no person shall;

1) Threaten to use physical force towards another person.

2) Act in an aggressive manner as to knowingly cause fear or harm through physical force.

Now a particular question in the wording of the law may be provided

Question: Is threatening someone with a weapon considered assault? A lawyer may say that according to Clause 1 of the law, you may not threaten to use physical force.

If the court was the review only one section of the law, this is specific jurisprudence.

If the lawyer said that the entire law would allow for assault based on the threatening manner of the defendants actions, the court would review the wording of the entire law. This is general jurisprudence.