1. In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Court, the Supreme Court:

1. Followed its prior decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California and affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims because the defendant’s activities in the forum state lacked any connection to plaintiffs’ claims.
2. Ruled that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction because there existed a sufficient affiliation between the forum states where the accidents at issue arose and plaintiffs resided and the defendant’s actions in exploiting the relevant market in the forum states.
3. Ruled that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum states because general jurisdiction over the defendant existed since defendant was incorporated in the forum state.
4. Ruled that the defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state because general jurisdiction over the defendant did not exist since defendant was not incorporated in the forum state.