A more thorough explanation:

General jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear any type of case that is not specifically assigned to another court. For example, in Arizona, the state's trial courts have general jurisdiction, which means they can hear cases involving equity, criminal cases, civil cases where the value of property in dispute exceeds $1,000, matters of probate, and any case or proceeding not assigned to another court.

General jurisdiction can also refer to a court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant in that state without violating due process, regardless of the nature of the claim. In order for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporate defendant, that defendant must have minimum contacts within the state and jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair justice. Minimum contacts are defined as "continuous and systematic" operations.

For example, in Perkins v. Benguet, a non-Ohio citizen sued Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, which was incorporated in the Philippines, in Ohio, where Benguet maintained business operations in response to the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. Benguet kept office files in their Ohio office, carried on official correspondence there, held director meetings there, supervised policies dealing with rehabilitation of the mines from there, and paid salary from that office. The Supreme Court found that these activities were continuous and systematic, so Ohio could subject Benguet to its jurisdiction without violating due process even though the plaintiff's claim was not related to Benguet's Ohio activities.

However, subsequent Supreme Court cases have significantly limited the extent to which states may subject corporations to personal jurisdiction based on their operations there alone. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in BNSF v. Tyrrell held that a state court may exercise general jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations when their affiliations with the state are so "continuous and systematic" as to render them essentially at home in the forum state. The Court described the paradigm forums in which a defendant corporation is at home as its place of incorporation and its principal place of business.