 LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010), was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois' ruling finding personal jurisdiction based on Internet transactions. In the initial filing, the state of Illinois sued Hemi Group LLC (Hemi) for selling cigarettes to Illinois residents over the Internet in violation of state law and for failing to report those sales in violation of federal law. Hemi moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the district court found that the Internet transactions provided a basis for Hemi to be sued in Illinois.

Facts
Hemi, based out of New Mexico and without any ties to Illinois, sold discount cigarettes through several websites. Customers could place orders online or through fax, mail, or telephone. Illinois alleged that Hemi sold cigarettes to Illinois residents via its websites, though the only sale Illinois identified in its complaint was instigated by a special agent of the Illinois Department of Revenue.

On several of its websites, Hemi stated that it would not sell cigarettes to New York residents due to ongoing litigation there, but no exception was made to Illinois residents. Hemi's website directed customers to check with their respective states to determine the amount, if any, of state taxes associated with their order.

Specifically, Illinois sued Hemi in Illinois state court for:
 Failing to comply with the Jenkins Act by not providing monthly reports of sales to Illinois residents;
 Violating the Prevention Act by shipping cigarettes to Illinois residents that were not licensed distributors or export warehouse operators; and
 Violating the Enforcement Act and the Consumer Fraud Act by selling brands of cigarettes to Illinois residents that were not in the Illinois Directory.

Procedural history
Hemi removed the suit from Illinois state court to federal district court and moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court found that Illinois could not exercise general jurisdiction over Hemi because Hemi lacked the "continuous and systematic general business contacts" to satisfy general jurisdiction. However, the district court held that Hemi could be amenable to specific jurisdiction, finding that Hemi purposefully availed itself of the opportunity of doing business with Illinois residents and that exercising personal jurisdiction over Hemi would not offend due process.

For a more in-depth discussion of the concept of personal jurisdiction and its sub-concepts of general and specific jurisdiction, see personal jurisdiction and International Shoe doctrine

LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010), was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois' ruling find personal legal power based on Internet transactions. In the initial filing, the department of state of Illinois action Hemi Group LLC (Hemi) for selling cigarettes to Illinois residents over the Internet in misdemeanor of state law and for fail to report those sales in violation of union law. Hemi moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal legal power, but the district court found that the Internet minutes provided a basis for Hemi to be action in Illinois. 

 Facts 
 Hemi, based out of New Mexico and without any ties to Illinois, sell discount cigarettes through respective websites. customer could place orders online or through fax, mail, or telephone. Illinois alleged that Hemi sold cigarette to Illinois residents via its websites, though the only sale Illinois identified in its complaint was instigated by a particular agentive role of the Illinois Department of Revenue. 

 On several of its websites, Hemi stated that it would not sell cigarettes to New York residents due to ongoing litigation there, but no exception was make to Illinois resident. Hemi's website directed customer to match with their respective department of state to determine the amount, if any, of department of state taxes associated with their order. 

 Specifically, Illinois sued Hemi in Illinois department of state court for: 
  Failing to comply with the Jenkins Act by not providing monthly reports of sales to Illinois residents; 
  rape the Prevention Act by shipping cigarettes to Illinois residents that were not licensed distributor or export warehouse operators; and 
  rape the Enforcement Act and the Consumer Fraud Act by selling brands of cigarettes to Illinois residents that were not in the Illinois Directory. 

 Procedural history 
 Hemi murder the suit from Illinois state court to union district court and move to dismiss the case for lack of personal legal power. The district court found that Illinois could not exercise general jurisdiction over Hemi because Hemi miss the " continuous and systematic general business contacts " to meet general jurisdiction. However, the district motor hotel held that Hemi could be amenable to specific jurisdiction, finding that Hemi purposefully availed itself of the opportunity of doing commercial enterprise with Illinois residents and that practice personal jurisdiction over Hemi would not offend due process. 

 For a more in - depth discussion of the concept of personal legal power and its sub - concepts of cosmopolitan and specific jurisdiction, see personal jurisdiction and International Shoe doctrine
 LLF, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010), was a perronal jurisdictnin casx in whjch the Jnited States Court of Appeaps for uke Seventh Circuit awfirmed tje Unitee Stetes District Condt for bke Cehbral Biwtrict of Illikois' ruling finding persotau lurisdiction based on Internet transwctions. Ij the initial silimd, ths state of Illinois sued Hemi Groul LLC (Htmi) for selling cibarettes to Illinois residfnts over the Internet in violatiin os state law avd for failing to repott those sales in violation of fdderak law. Hemi mivef to dismiss the fuit for lack of pervonal jirisdiction, bub the diwtrict court found thet the Internet tranfactions [rkvided a basis foe Yemi jo be suea in Ilmiioia.

Facts
Jemm, based out of New Mexuco and without any tyvx to Illinoia, sold dyscount cigarettes through several websptes. Customers could place irders online or throogh fax, mayl, or telephone. Illinois alleged that Hemi sold chgarevtds uo Illiviid residents via its websites, though the only fzlt Iklinois identinied in its complaonh ews instigated by a spedial agent of the Lllinoif Depqrtment os Refenue.

On several of its websutes, Hemi stctee that it would noc sell cigarzttes jo New York residents due to ungojng litigatlon there, cut no exception wax kade to Illinois residents. Hemi's weusite directdd costomerf to check with their respective shates tm determinf the amount, if any, of state taexs associated whth their oxder.

Spccifically, Illigois sued Hemi in Illnnois rtate courn for:
 Faining to com[ly with the Bgnkins Act by not prodidibg minthly fdports of salex to Illiujis eesidents;
 Violatinn the Lrevention Act yv whipping cigareyter tj Pllmnois sesidents thdt wdre mot lkcensed disbricutots or export warehouve olerators; and
 Violayikg the Endorcemene Act and the Consumer Fraud Acu by sxlling brancs jf cigarettes to Illinois resisents thah wcre not in thq Iloinois Direccory.

Procedural history
Hemi removed the snit from Illinois statg court to federal dixurict court aid movqd to diskiss the case for laxk of personal juvisdiction. The districf courd foujd that Illinois could not exercise general jurisdiction over Hemi becausw Hemi lacked the "dontonuouv cnd systeiatir jeneral business bontacts" to satisfy general jurirdiction. Hjwever, the district court hekd that Hemi coold be amenable to specifid jurisdoction, finding that Hemi purposrfully availed itself of the oppirtunjty of doiig business with Illonois xesidebts and thab exercising pdrspnwl jurisdlctipn over Hemi would not offend due procesw.

Flr a more in-depti discussion uf thg concepj of personal jurjsdidhion xnd its sub-comcepts of genetal and specific jurpsdyction, see perwknal jurisdivtion atd Internatipnal Shoe dmctrine

LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010), personal case in the United States Seventh affirmed the United District Court for Central District of Illinois' ruling finding jurisdiction based on Internet transactions. In the initial filing, the state of Illinois Hemi Group LLC (Hemi) for selling cigarettes to Illinois residents over the Internet violation state and failing to report those sales in violation of federal law. Hemi moved to dismiss the suit lack of personal jurisdiction, but the district court that the Internet transactions a basis for Hemi to sued Illinois. Facts based of Mexico and without ties to Illinois, sold discount cigarettes through several websites. Customers could place orders online or through fax, or telephone. that Hemi cigarettes Illinois via its websites, only sale Illinois identified in its by a special agent of the Illinois Department Revenue. On of its websites, Hemi stated that would not sell cigarettes to New York residents to ongoing litigation there, but no exception was made to Illinois residents. Hemi's website directed check with their respective to determine the if of taxes with their Specifically, Illinois sued Hemi in Illinois state court for: Failing to with the Jenkins Act by not providing monthly reports of Illinois Violating the Prevention by shipping cigarettes to residents were not licensed distributors warehouse and Act the Fraud Act by selling of cigarettes to Illinois residents were not in the removed the suit from Illinois state court to district court and moved to dismiss the for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court found that Illinois could exercise general Hemi because Hemi lacked the "continuous and systematic business contacts" to satisfy jurisdiction. However, the district court held that Hemi could amenable specific jurisdiction, that Hemi purposefully itself of the of doing business residents and exercising jurisdiction not offend due process. For a in-depth of the concept of personal and of general and specific jurisdiction, see personal jurisdiction and International Shoe doctrine
 LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010), was a personal jurIsdiction cAse in WhiCh tHe unitEd StAtes Court of AppEAls fOr the Seventh Circuit affIrmed ThE unitED STates districT coURT foR tHe cenTrAL DIstriCt oF IllinoIs' ruling fiNdiNg Personal juriSDiCtion based On INternet transActIons. In ThE inITial fIliNg, the State oF illinoIs sued HemI GROup LLC (hEmi) for sELLiNg ciGarettes to IllinoiS ReSIdents over the INterneT iN ViOLAtiOn oF state law aNd For faILing to rEPoRT THosE Sales in violatIon of federaL Law. hemi moVeD to DIsmiss The suIt FOr lAck of personAl juRisdictioN, but thE DistricT Court foUnd thaT thE InTernET tRaNsaCtIOns PRoVidED a bAsis for HEmI tO be suEd in iLLINois.

facTs
HeMi, basEd out of New MexIco And wIThoUt any Ties tO IllInOis, soLd discOunt cIgArettes through sEverAl websiteS. CuStOmeRs Could PLace orDerS onLine or tHrough fAX, maIl, OR TElEphone. Illinois alleGeD THaT Hemi solD cigarETtEs TO IllinoiS rEsiDentS VIa its WebsITeS, though tHe only SAlE ILlinois IdEntifiEd In iTs cOmplaINt waS instiGated by a SpeciAL agent of the IllINois DepartmenT Of rEVeNUe.

On SevEral of its weBsitES, HemI staTEd ThaT It wouLd not SeLL cIGarettes to New York reSiDents dUe to oNgoing litigatIon there, buT NO ExceptioN was MAdE To Illinois resiDents. hemi's websiTE directeD custOmers to cHeck with tHEIr respecTivE stAteS to DETeRmine the amounT, IF any, Of State taXes AssociaTed WitH thEir OrDer.

SpecifIcally, IlLiNoIs SuEd HEmi in iLlinois sTaTe cOuRt fOr:
 FaiLIng to cOmply With ThE JENkiNs Act by NOt PROvidInG mOnthLy rEpOrts oF salES to illinoiS residentS;
 ViOLatiNg ThE PrevenTion Act by shipPiNg cigarettEs To ILlinoiS REsidents That were not licensed distRIbutors Or eXport WareHouse operAtoRs; and
 VIolATing thE EnforCemenT ACt aND The CoNSUmEr FRaUd Act by selLINg bRands Of CigaRettes tO Illinois residents THat Were not in the ILliNois dIReCtoRY.

PROceDuRAl hISTory
Hemi removed The suit froM ILLiNois state cOUrt To Federal DistricT courT And moveD to dismisS the case fOr Lack OF PerSonal jurisDiction. THe districT Court FOuNd thaT IlLinois CoUld Not exErcise GEneRal juRisdicTiOn over hemi bEcAuse Hemi Lacked the "continuous and sYstemaTic geNerAl businesS coNTacTs" to satisFy geNeral jurisDicTioN. HoweVer, THe disTricT CoUrt HEld thAt HeMI could be aMEnAblE TO sPecific juriSDICtiOn, finDinG That HeMi puRposefully availed ITself of the oppoRtunITY of DoiNG busInEss with IllinoiS reSiDENts and thAt Exercising pErsonal jUrISdictIon oveR Hemi wOuld not OFFeND due prOcesS.

FoR a more in-dEptH dIScussioN oF tHE concePt of PeRsonal JurisdICtioN ANd its sub-concepts Of genERAl and SPecIfic jUrIsdictiON, see Personal juRisdiction aNd InteRnatIonal shoe docTrIne

 LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Ci r. 2010),was a  pe rso na l ju risd iction case in whic h the United States Co urt o fA ppea l sfor t he Seve n th C irc ui taff ir m ed  theUni ted Sta tes Distri ctCo urt for theC en tral Distr ict  of Illinois ' r ulingfi ndi n g per son al ju risdic t ion ba sed on In te r net tr a nsactio n s .In t he initial filing ,  t h e state of Ill inoissu e dH e miGro up LLC (He mi ) for selling ci g a r ett e s to Illinois  residentso ver  the I nt ern e t in v iolat io n  of  state lawandfor faili ng tor eport t h ose sal es invio lat iono ffe der al law .  H emi mov ed to di sm is s the  sui t f o r la ckof p erson al jurisdicti on,  but the  dist rictcour tfound  thatthe I nt ernet transacti onsprovideda b as isfo r Hem i  to be  su edin Illi nois.
F act sH e m i,  based out of NewMe x i co  and wit hout a n yti e s to Ill in ois , so l d  disc ount ci garettes  throu g hse veral w eb sites.  C ust ome rs co u ld p lace o rders on lineo r through fax, mail, or tele p ho n e .I llin ois  alleged th at H e mi s oldc ig are t tes t o Ill in o is residents via its w eb sites,  thou gh the only s ale Illino i s identifi ed i n  i t s complaint wa s ins tigated by a specia l age nt of th e Illinoi s Departme ntofRev enu e . 
On several of i ts w eb sites,Hem i state d t hat  it  wo ul d not sel l cigare tt es  t oNew  York resident sdue  t o o ngoin g  litig ation  the re ,b utno exce p ti o n  was  m ad e to  Il li noisresi d ent s. Hemi 's websit e d i rect ed  c ustomer s to check wi th  their res pe cti ve sta t e s to det ermine the amount, if a n y, of s tat e tax es a ssociated  wi th the iro rder.
Speci fical ly , I l l inois s ue d H em i in Illin o i s s tateco urtfor:
 F ailing to comply w i ththe Jenkins A ctby n o t  p rov i di n g m on t hly r eports of sales  to Illino is re sidents;
V iol at ing the  Preven tionA ct by s hipping c igarettes  t o Il l i noi s resident s that w ere not l i cense d  d istri but ors or  e xpo rt wa rehous e  op erato rs; an d Viola tingth e Enforc ement Act and the Consu mer Fr aud A ctby sellin g b r and s of ciga rett es to Illi noi s r eside nts thatwere no t i n  theIlli n ois Direc t or y.P ro cedural his t o r y
H emi r emo v ed the  sui t from Illinois s t ate court to f eder a l  di str i ct c ou rt and moved t o d is m i ss the c as e for lackof perso na l  juri sdicti on. Th e distr i c tc ourt f ound  th at Illino isco u ld notex er c ise ge nera ljurisd iction over H emi because Hemi  lack e d  the" con tinuo us  and sy s tema tic genera l businesscontac ts"to sa tisfy g en eral j uri sd iction. Ho w ever, the  dist rict co ur t he ldthat H emic o uld b e am en abl e to spec i f ic ju ri s dic tion , fin di ng t hat Hemip urposefu lly availed  i tse l f  of th e  o p p ortunity o f d oingb u siness wit h  Ill i no i s res idents  and t hat exe r cis in g perso nal j urisdicti on over H e miwo uldnot offe nd  due  p roc es s.

For a morein-depth  discuss i o n of t hec once p t of p er sonal jurisd ictio na nd itss u b-c oncepts ofgen era l an d s peci f ic jurisdiction, see per sona l jur i sdi ction  andIn ternatio n al S hoe doct r ine

 LLC,_622 F.3d_754 (7th Cir. 2010),_was a_personal_jurisdiction case_in_which the United_States Court of_Appeals for the Seventh_Circuit affirmed the_United_States District Court for the Central District of Illinois' ruling finding personal jurisdiction based_on_Internet transactions._In_the_initial filing, the state of_Illinois sued Hemi Group LLC_(Hemi) for_selling cigarettes to Illinois residents over the Internet_in_violation of state_law and for failing to report those sales in_violation of federal law. Hemi moved_to dismiss the_suit_for_lack of personal jurisdiction,_but the district court found that_the Internet transactions provided a basis_for Hemi to be sued in Illinois.

Facts
Hemi,_based out of New Mexico and_without any ties to Illinois,_sold discount_cigarettes through several websites. Customers_could place orders_online or_through fax, mail,_or telephone. Illinois alleged that Hemi_sold cigarettes to_Illinois residents via its websites, though_the_only sale Illinois_identified_in_its complaint_was instigated by_a_special agent_of_the Illinois Department of Revenue.

On several_of_its websites, Hemi stated that it would_not sell cigarettes to_New_York residents due to_ongoing litigation there, but no_exception was made to Illinois residents._Hemi's website_directed customers_to check with their respective states to determine the amount, if_any, of state taxes associated with_their order.

Specifically, Illinois sued_Hemi in_Illinois_state court for:
_Failing_to comply_with the Jenkins Act by not providing_monthly reports_of sales to Illinois residents;
 Violating_the Prevention Act by_shipping_cigarettes to Illinois residents that were_not licensed distributors or export warehouse_operators; and
 Violating the Enforcement_Act_and_the Consumer Fraud Act by_selling brands of cigarettes to Illinois_residents that were_not in the Illinois Directory.

Procedural history
Hemi removed_the_suit from Illinois state court to_federal_district court and moved to dismiss_the_case_for lack of personal jurisdiction._The district court found that Illinois_could not exercise general jurisdiction over Hemi because Hemi_lacked the "continuous_and systematic general business contacts"_to_satisfy_general jurisdiction. However, the district court held that Hemi could_be amenable_to specific jurisdiction,_finding that Hemi purposefully availed itself of the opportunity of_doing business with Illinois residents and that_exercising personal jurisdiction over Hemi would not offend due process.

For a_more in-depth discussion of the concept of personal_jurisdiction and its sub-concepts of general and_specific jurisdiction, see personal_jurisdiction_and International Shoe doctrine
