Which of the following statements is true regarding personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in Georgia?

In Georgia, personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants can indeed be established by actions that have repercussions within the state, such as committing torts. This principle is grounded in the concept of "minimum contacts," where a defendant's activities in Georgia provide a basis for jurisdiction. If an out-of-state defendant commits a tort that causes injury within Georgia, the courts can assert personal jurisdiction because the defendant has purposefully engaged with the state’s activities, thereby justifying the state's interest in adjudicating the dispute.

The notion that personal jurisdiction is solely based on physical presence is overly restrictive and does not encompass the broader principles established in the law. Similarly, while consent can be a basis for establishing jurisdiction, it is not the only means, making it insufficient to stand alone as a complete answer. Furthermore, the statement that personal jurisdiction is not applicable for non-residents is incorrect; personal jurisdiction can indeed be exercised over non-residents if the necessary conditions, like committing a tort in the state, are met. Thus, establishing personal jurisdiction through torts acknowledges the state's legitimate interest in cases where residents are harmed by out-of-state individuals or entities.