![hustler magazine covers 1983 hustler magazine covers 1983](https://magazinesarchive.com/covers/club/b_1989_06.jpg)
(c) The combination of New Hampshire's interest in redressing injuries that occur within the State and its interest in cooperating with other States in applying the "single publication rule" demonstrates the propriety The contacts between respondent and the forum must be judged in light of that claim, rather than a claim only for damages sustained in New Hampshire. Thus, it is relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry here that petitioner is seeking to recover damages suffered in all States in one suit. (b) In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Shaffer v. (a) New Hampshire jurisdiction over a complaint based on this circulation of magazines satisfies the Due Process Clause's requirement that a State's assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant be predicated on "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the State.
![hustler magazine covers 1983 hustler magazine covers 1983](https://wonderclub.com/images/HUST/HUST201207.jpg)
Held: Respondent's regular circulation of magazines in the forum State is sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that petitioner's lack of contact with New Hampshire rendered that State's interest in redressing the tort of libel to petitioner too attenuated for an assertion of personal jurisdiction over respondent, and that, in view of the "single publication rule," which would require an award of damages caused in all States, as well as New Hampshire's unusually long (6-year) limitation period for libel actions, it would be "unfair" to assert jurisdiction over respondent. The District Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbade application of New Hampshire's long-arm statute in order to acquire personal jurisdiction over respondent. Respondent's contacts with New Hampshire consist of monthly sales of some 10,000 to 15,000 copies of its nationally published magazine. Petitioner's only connection with New Hampshire is the circulation there of a magazine that she assists in producing. Petitioner, a resident of New York, brought a libel suit against respondent magazine publisher (hereafter respondent), an Ohio corporation, in Federal District Court in New Hampshire, alleging jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship.