17 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,616 times 236 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) Cited 2,180 times 135 Legal Analyses
Holding that unrelated contacts cannot diminish the required showing of an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy
Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 28,618 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,584 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) )
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell
137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) Cited 585 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that because BNSF was "not incorporated in Montana and does not maintain its principal place of business there" or was otherwise "so heavily engaged in activity in Montana 'as to render [it] essentially at home' in that State," general jurisdiction was improper
Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing
512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,367 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile
Boschetto v. Hansing
539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,180 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the lone transaction for the sale of one item" did not create personal jurisdiction over the defendants in California because there were no allegations that the seller was a regular user of eBay to sell cars or "as a broader vehicle for commercial activity"
Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co.
342 U.S. 437 (1952) Cited 1,817 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation due to the extent and nature of the temporary operations in the state, finding such business activity was continuous and systematic
Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.
143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,045 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court is “not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint”
Griggs v. Pace American Group
170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 709 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that holder of contingent rights to receive stock had standing to bring federal securities claims
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,505 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 68,933 times 122 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
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,023 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Smith v. Kellogg Company et al

17 Cited authorities

Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

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

Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

Holding that because BNSF was "not incorporated in Montana and does not maintain its principal place of business there" or was otherwise "so heavily engaged in activity in Montana 'as to render [it] essentially at home' in that State," general jurisdiction was improper

Holding that a court may deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile

Holding that "the lone transaction for the sale of one item" did not create personal jurisdiction over the defendants in California because there were no allegations that the seller was a regular user of eBay to sell cars or "as a broader vehicle for commercial activity"

Holding Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation due to the extent and nature of the temporary operations in the state, finding such business activity was continuous and systematic

Holding that the court is “not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint”

Holding that holder of contingent rights to receive stock had standing to bring federal securities claims

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

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

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system