Alabama Long-Arm Statute
AL ST RCP 4.2 (2003)
Rule 4.2. Process: Basis for and methods of out-of-state service.
(a) Basis for Out-of-State Service.
(1) When proper. Appropriate basis exists for service of process outside of this state upon a person in any action in this state when:
(A) the person is, at the time of the service of process, either a nonresident of this state or a resident of this state who is absent from the state, and;
(B) the person has sufficient contacts with this state, as set forth in subdivision (a)(2) of this rule, so that the prosecution of the action against the person in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States, or, the person is sued in the capacity of executor, administrator, or other personal representative of an estate for the acts of omissions of a decedent or ward, and the person so sued does not otherwise have sufficient contacts with this state in that capacity, but the decedent or ward would have been deemed to have sufficient contacts with this state if the action could have been maintained against the decedent or ward. (2) Sufficient contacts. A person has sufficient contacts with the state when that person, acting directly or by agent, is or may be legally responsible as a consequence of that person’s:
(A) transacting any business in this state;
(B) contracting to supply services or goods in this state;
(C) causing tortious injury or damage by an act or omission in this state including but not limited to actions arising out of the ownership, operation or use of a motor vehicle, aircraft, boat or watercraft in this state;
(D) causing tortious injury or damage in this state by an act or omission outside this state if the person regularly does or solicitsbusiness, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state;
(E) causing injury or damage in this state to any person by breach of warranty expressly or impliedly made in the sale of goods outside this state when the person might reasonably have expected such other person to use, consume, or be affected by the goods in this state, provided that the person also regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state;
(F) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this state;
(G) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting;
(H) living in the marital relationship within this state notwithstanding subsequent departure from this state, as to all obligations arising from alimony, custody, child support, or property settlement, if the other party to the marital relationship continues to reside in this state; or
(I) otherwise having some minimum contacts with this state and, under the circumstances, it is fair and reasonable to require the person to come to this state to defend an action. The minimum contacts referred to in this subdivision (I) shall be deemed sufficient, notwithstanding a failure to satisfy the requirement of subdivisions (A)-(H) of this subsection (2), so long as the prosecution of the action against a person in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States.
(3) “Person” defined. This term “person” as used herein includes an individual, that person’s executor, administrator, or other personal representative, or a corporation, partnership, association, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(b) Methods of out-of-state service. All service of process outside of this state shall be made as set forth below except when service by publication isavailable pursuant to Rule 4.3. Service outside of this state under this rule shall include service by certified mail and delivery by a process server; and each method shall be deemed to confer in personam jurisdiction. Unless otherwise requested or permitted by these rules, service of process outside this state shall be made by certified mail.
(1) Certified mail.
(A) How Served. The clerk shall place a copy of the process and complaint or other document to be served in an envelope and shall address the envelope to the person to be served at that person’s last known address with instructions to forward. The clerk shall affix adequate postage and place the sealed envelope in the United States mail as certified mail return receipt requested with instructions to the delivering postal employee to show to whom delivered, date of delivery, and address where delivered. When the person to be served is an individual, the clerk shall also request restricted delivery, unless otherwise ordered by the court. The clerk shall forthwith enter the fact of mailing on the docket sheet of the action and make a similar entry when the return receipt is received.
(B) When Effective. Service by certified mail shall be deemed complete and the time for answering shall run from the date of delivery of process as evidenced by the return receipt.
(C) Failure of Delivery. If the return receipt shows failure of delivery, the clerk shall forthwith notify, by mail, the attorney of record, or if there is no attorney of record, the party at whose instance process was issued. In the event that the return receipt shows failure of delivery, service is complete when the serving party or the serving party’s attorney, after notification by the clerk, files with the clerk an affidavit setting forth facts indicating the reasonable diligence utilized to ascertain the whereabouts of the party to be served, and service by publication is made under Rule 4.3(c).
(2) Delivery by a process server.
(A) When Proper. When the plaintiff files a written request with the clerk for service by delivery by a process server, service of the process and accompanying documents may be delivered to a “person” as set forth in subparagraph (a) of this rule by a person designated by order of the court to make service of process.
(B) How Served and Returned. Service herein may be made by any person not less than eighteen (18) years of age who is not a party and who has been designated by order of the court. On request, the clerk shall deliver the summons to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney for transmission to the person who will make the service. Proof of service may be made as prescribed by Rule 4.1(b)(3) or by order of the court.
Seminal Case
Keelean v. Central Bank of the South, 544 So. 2d 153 (Ala. 1989) (overruled on other grounds by Professional Ins. Corp. v. Sutherland, 700 So. 2d 347 (Ala.
1997)) (holding that Alabama court had jurisdiction over out-of-state guarantors of a loan made at an Alabama bank, even though all negotiations of the loan took place in Florida, due to the fact that the guaranty contained (according to the court) an invalid forum-selection clause. Thus, the guarantors had fair warning of being hauled into court in Alabama).
Contract Case
DeSotacho v. Valnit Industries, Inc., 350 So. 2d 447 (Ala. 1977) (finding that defendant had sufficient contacts with Alabama for the application of Alabama’s long-arm statute, where defendant sent its president to Alabama on at least five occasions, which culminated in the parties’ entering into a contract).
Business Tort Case
Duke v. Young, 496 So. 2d 37 (Ala. 1986) (holding that Alabama’s long-arm statute conferred jurisdiction over six nonresident directors of a Georgia corporation, forcing the nonresidents to defend a fraud claim in Alabama).
Internet Case
Butler v. Beer Across America, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (N.D. Ala. 2000) (finding plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction as to out-of-state defendants who sold beer to their minor over the Internet).

Tennessee Long-Arm Statute
TN ST § 20-2-214 (2002)§ 20-2-214. Jurisdiction of persons unavailable to personal service in state –
Classes of actions to which applicable.
(1) Persons who are nonresidents of Tennessee and residents of
Tennessee who are outside the state and cannot be personally served with process within the state are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any action or claim for relief arising from:
(a) The transaction of any business within the state;
(b) Any tortious act or omission within this state;
(c) The ownership or possession of any interest in property located within this state;
(d) Entering into any contract of insurance, indemnity, or guaranty covering any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting; (e) Entering into a contract for services to be rendered or for materials to be furnished in this state;
(f) Any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or of the United States;
(g) Any action of divorce, annulment or separate maintenance where the parties lived in the marital relationship within this state, notwithstanding one party’s subsequent departure from this state, as to all obligations arising for alimony, custody, child support, or marital dissolution agreement, if the other party to the marital relationship continues to reside in this state.
(2) “Person,” as used herein, includes corporations and all other entities which would be subject to service of process if present in this state.
(3) Any such person shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of this state who acts in the manner above described through an agent or personal representative. § 17.041. Definition.
In this subchapter, “nonresident” includes:
(a) an individual who is not a resident of this state; and
(b) a foreign corporation, joint-stock company, association, or partnership. Seminal Case
Masada Inv. Corp. v. Allen, 697 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. 1985) (under the Tennessee long-arm statute personal jurisdiction was proper so long as defendant’s conduct satisfied federal due process).
Contract Case
J.I. Case Corp. v. Williams, 832 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. 1992) (finding personal jurisdiction based on a contractual relationship was proper where a party reached out from one state and created a continuing relationship with a Tennessee citizen).
Business Tort Case
Chenault v. Walker, 36 S.W.3d 45 (Tenn. 2001) (holding that a defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory if a coconspirator commits an act in furtherance of the conspiracy that, if committed by the foreign defendant, would subject that defendant to personal jurisdiction).
Internet Case
Bailey v. Turbine Design, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 790 (W.D. Tenn. 2000) (finding that plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction under Tennessee’s long-arm statute where evidence showed that defendant did not have any contact with
Tennessee other than posting alleged defamatory statements on defendant’s
Internet website).