34 Cited authorities

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,401 times 87 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 7,048 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) Cited 2,216 times 135 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiffs had failed to establish personal jurisdiction over defendants in California in part because they "did not allege that they obtained [the drug at issue] through California physicians or from any other California source; nor did they claim that they were injured by [that drug] or were treated for their injuries in California"
Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.
460 U.S. 1 (1983) Cited 12,076 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding stay order appealable under § 1291 where it put the litigant "effectively out of court," and "surrender[ed] jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court"
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
499 U.S. 585 (1991) Cited 1,967 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that forum-selection clause in cruise passengers' form contract was reasonable and enforceable where there was "no indication" that the designated forum was chosen to "discourag[e] cruise passengers from pursing legitimate claims"
Tamburo v. Dworkin
601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 703 times
Holding the Illinois Antitrust Act "parallels the federal Sherman and Clayton Acts" and finding that the plaintiff's state antitrust claim failed to state a claim where it was based on "the inadequate allegations contained in the federal antirust claim"
In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 344 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that individual issues within state subclasses would render class action impracticable, even if litigated state-by-state
ProCd, Incorporated v. Zeidenberg
86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 269 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that terms inside a software box bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and reject them by returning the product
Kasalo v. Harris Harris
656 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2011) Cited 174 times
Holding that a court "need not delay a ruling on certification if it thinks that additional discovery would not be useful in resolving the class determination"
Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc.
105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 199 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that customers were bound by the defendant's terms of service, including provisions they did not read, where they ordered a computer over the phone, received the terms of service in the mail along with the shipment, and did not return the product
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
28 U.S.C. § 2072 Cited 1,828 times 37 Legal Analyses
Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases

Kessler v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

34 Cited authorities

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

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding stay order appealable under § 1291 where it put the litigant "effectively out of court," and "surrender[ed] jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court"

Holding that forum-selection clause in cruise passengers' form contract was reasonable and enforceable where there was "no indication" that the designated forum was chosen to "discourag[e] cruise passengers from pursing legitimate claims"

Holding the Illinois Antitrust Act "parallels the federal Sherman and Clayton Acts" and finding that the plaintiff's state antitrust claim failed to state a claim where it was based on "the inadequate allegations contained in the federal antirust claim"

Holding that individual issues within state subclasses would render class action impracticable, even if litigated state-by-state

Holding that terms inside a software box bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and reject them by returning the product

Holding that a court "need not delay a ruling on certification if it thinks that additional discovery would not be useful in resolving the class determination"

Holding that customers were bound by the defendant's terms of service, including provisions they did not read, where they ordered a computer over the phone, received the terms of service in the mail along with the shipment, and did not return the product

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases