Which of the following is a valid reason for asserting jurisdiction under Georgia's long-arm statute?

Asserting jurisdiction under Georgia's long-arm statute is primarily based on certain activities that create sufficient connections between the defendant and the state of Georgia. Conducting business that impacts Georgia establishes such a connection, as it directly relates to the defendant's engagement with the state's commercial environment. This involvement indicates that the defendant can reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Georgia due to their business activities within the state.

In contrast, frequent visitation to Georgia may not be enough to establish jurisdiction since mere physical presence does not guarantee that a defendant has engaged in activities that would justify the state exercising its authority. Having a family member in Georgia is generally irrelevant unless it is linked to specific actions that affect the state. Lastly, residing temporarily in Georgia does not automatically create a basis for jurisdiction unless it is tied to business activities or other actions that directly impact the state’s interests. Thus, conducting business that impacts Georgia is the clear and valid reason for asserting jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.