2. All of the opinions in McIntyre claim fidelity to the requirement of purposeful availment, but they differ significantly on what plaintiff must show to meet her burden.

Which of the opinions in McIntyre would support the constitutionality of the exercise of specific jurisdiction by a court in Idaho in a suit by a plaintiff injured in that state:

(a) When defendant is a foreign component part manufacturer who markets its product throughout the United States.

(b) When defendant is a California component part manufacturer who markets its product nationwide through an independent distributor.

(c) When defendant is a component part manufacturer who markets its product to an end-product manufacturer whose principal place of business is in Washington State.

(d) When defendant is a component part manufacturer who markets its product to an end-product manufacturer whose principal place of business is in Illinois.

(e) When defendant is a foreign end-product manufacturer who markets its product throughout the United States.
See Noyes, The Persistent Problem of Purposeful Availment, 45 Conn. L. Rev. 41 (2012).