§Why CasetextPricing

Notice of Motion And Motion To Quash Service of Summons

Motion

27 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,954 times   238 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,480 times   88 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  3. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 17,212 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

  4. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,412 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  5. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 11,008 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  6. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 23,009 times   110 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) )

  7. Bancroft Masters, Inc., v. Augusta National

    223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,235 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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

  8. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

    952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)   Cited 1,323 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania

  9. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.

    14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 858 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a “substantial nexus or connection” approach in applying the California long-arm statute and, in rejecting other approaches, questioning the wisdom “of importing a causation test from tort law to measure a matter that is fundamentally one of relationship and fairness rather than causation”

  10. Pavlovich v. Superior Court

    29 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 215 times
    Rejecting the personal jurisdiction of California courts in a trade secret infringement case over a Texan who posted the offending computer code on a website