16 Cited authorities

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,203 times 86 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,300 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) Cited 2,181 times 135 Legal Analyses
Holding that unrelated contacts cannot diminish the required showing of an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,873 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
564 U.S. 873 (2011) Cited 1,341 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that a metal-shearing machine manufacturer based in England that engaged an independent distributor to sell its machines across the U.S. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured while using one of the company's machines
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,588 times 109 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
O'Connor v. Sandy Lane
496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 1,133 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a vacation company purposefully contacted Pennsylvania by mailing brochures and calling Pennsylvania residents
D'Jamoos v. Pilatus Aircraft
566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 461 times
Holding that transfer under this statute is appropriate where a court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant
Vetrotex Certainteed v. Consolidated Fiber
75 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1996) Cited 487 times
Holding that "whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over an out-of-state defendant is a question of law, and this court's review is therefore plenary."
Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC
885 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2018) Cited 226 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the parties should be permitted to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery, "which we ordinarily allow when a plaintiff's claim to personal jurisdiction is not clearly frivolous"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,885 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Abelard et al v. Clean Earth, Inc. et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”

Holding that unrelated contacts cannot diminish the required showing of an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy

Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

Holding that a metal-shearing machine manufacturer based in England that engaged an independent distributor to sell its machines across the U.S. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured while using one of the company's machines

Holding a vacation company purposefully contacted Pennsylvania by mailing brochures and calling Pennsylvania residents

Holding that transfer under this statute is appropriate where a court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant

Holding that "whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over an out-of-state defendant is a question of law, and this court's review is therefore plenary."

Holding that the parties should be permitted to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery, "which we ordinarily allow when a plaintiff's claim to personal jurisdiction is not clearly frivolous"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss