Whitley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.: Nevada Supreme Court Limits the Calder “Effects” Test to Intentional Torts

Introduction

In Whitley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 33 (2025), the Supreme Court of Nevada addressed whether a Nevada court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Greyhound Lines, Inc. for negligence claims arising out of a tragic shooting that occurred on a California leg of a cross-country bus trip. Although the district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction by applying the Calder v. Jones “effects” test, the Supreme Court clarified that Calder applies only to intentional torts. Nevertheless, the justices affirmed dismissal because the negligence claims did not “arise from” Greyhound’s Nevada contacts under the traditional purposeful-availment analysis.

The opinion thus narrows the reach of Calder in Nevada and re-emphasises the two-step framework for assessing specific jurisdiction in non-intentional tort cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court erred by relying on the Calder effects test because the plaintiff asserted negligence, not an intentional tort.
Applying the correct two-pronged “purposeful availment / arising-from” test, Greyhound had minimal contacts with Nevada (registration; stations; ticket sale) but the claims did not arise from those contacts.
Because the “arising-from” element failed, exercising jurisdiction would violate due-process principles; therefore, dismissal was proper.
The Court consequently affirmed the district court’s order, while correcting its reasoning.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) – Provides the “effects” test: (1) intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at forum, (3) harm known to be suffered there. Court held this test is limited to intentional torts; negligence claims must use purposeful-availment framework.
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) – Emphasised that the defendant’s, not the plaintiff’s, contacts matter. The opinion cites Walden to underscore that jurisdiction turns on defendant-generated contacts.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) – Articulated purposeful availment and “fair play and substantial justice” concepts; quotation used to show contacts must not be “random, fortuitous, or attenuated.”
Nevada cases:
- Tricarichi v. Coop. Rabobank, 135 Nev. 87 (2019) – Primary Nevada template for specific jurisdiction (purposeful availment/direction + arising-from + reasonableness); provides articulation of Calder test adopted from Ninth Circuit.
- Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 109 Nev. 687 (1993) – Early Nevada authority distinguishing general vs. specific jurisdiction and requiring claim nexus.
- Burgauer v. Morck, 138 Nev. 801 (2022) – Confirmed that Calder applies “so long as the underlying claims sound in intentional tort.”
- Other supporting citations: Freeman (general vs. specific), Arbella Mutual (claim nexus), Fulbright & Jaworski (de novo review standard).

Legal Reasoning

The Court first isolated the doctrinal error: the district court used the Calder effects test despite plaintiffs alleging only negligence. Citing Burgauer, the Court reaffirmed that intentionality is the key that unlocks Calder.

Moving to the correct framework, the justices analysed the two elements:

Purposeful Availment: Greyhound registered to do business in Nevada, ran 17 stations, advertised routes, and sold the ticket to Rose (a Nevada resident) for a trip ending in Las Vegas. These were qualitative, not “random” contacts – therefore the first prong was satisfied.
Arising From / Nexus: The shooting, alleged security failures, and training lapses occurred wholly within California; the relevant employees and policies were located there. Nevada connections (the later medical treatment and child’s birth) were “attenuated consequences,” not suit-related conduct. Accordingly, the negligence claims did not arise from Greyhound’s Nevada conduct.

Because the nexus element failed, the Court did not need to address the “reasonableness/fair play” stage.

Potential Impact of the Decision

Clarifies jurisdictional tests: Nevada courts must confine Calder to intentional torts. Litigants alleging negligence must satisfy the traditional “purposeful availment + nexus” test.
Reduces forum-shopping leverage: Plaintiffs cannot rely on downstream injuries felt in Nevada to secure jurisdiction if the alleged negligent conduct occurred elsewhere.
Guidance for multi-state businesses: Corporations with operations in Nevada are not automatically subject to suit there for every out-of-state mishap; only claims arising from Nevada-based conduct qualify.
Procedural economy: District courts are instructed to identify the proper test early, preventing misallocation of resources on defective jurisdictional theories.
Possible legislative response: Nevada could, as some states have, adopt “consent-by-registration” statutes making foreign corporations subject to general jurisdiction upon registration, but currently the Court treats registration only as a contact, not consent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Jurisdiction: The court’s authority to bind a defendant to its judgment. Requires constitutional “minimum contacts.”
General vs. Specific Jurisdiction: General: Defendant’s contacts are so systematic and continuous that it can be sued for anything (usually place of incorporation or principal place of business). Specific: Suit must relate to defendant’s contacts with the forum.
Purposeful Availment: A defendant “reaches into” the forum—by doing business, advertising, contracting—so it can reasonably expect to be sued there.
Purposeful Direction (Calder Effects Test): Used for intentional torts; asks whether the defendant targeted the forum with conduct knowing injury would be felt there.
Arising-From Nexus: The claim must stem from or be substantially connected to the defendant’s forum activities.

Conclusion

Whitley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. squarely limits the Calder effects test to intentional torts and reinforces the traditional purposeful-availment analysis for negligence actions in Nevada. While Greyhound’s Nevada operations sufficed for minimum contacts, the absence of a causal nexus between those contacts and the California shooting meant exercising jurisdiction would offend due process. The decision provides vital guidance to litigants and courts navigating multi-state negligence claims, ensuring that personal-jurisdiction doctrine in Nevada remains aligned with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and basic notions of fairness.