37 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"
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
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,270 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
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
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) )
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
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,661 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"
Bancroft Masters, Inc., v. Augusta National
223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,226 times
Holding that California had personal jurisdiction over declaratory judgment defendant because of defendant's challenge to plaintiff's registration for its domain name, which challenge was filed with an agency located in Virginia but affected the plaintiff's ability to use the domain name in California
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
Section 51 - Liability of common carriers by railroad, in interstate or foreign commerce, for injuries to employees from negligence; employee defined
45 U.S.C. § 51 Cited 7,569 times 17 Legal Analyses
Denying recovery to an inferior class of beneficiaries [dependent siblings] where a preferred class [parents] exists
Section 410.10 - Generally
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 Cited 1,323 times 1 Legal Analyses
Allowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements

Grant McKee v. Audible, Inc et al

37 Cited authorities

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

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 “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

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 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, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"

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

Denying recovery to an inferior class of beneficiaries [dependent siblings] where a preferred class [parents] exists

Allowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements