30 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,690 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 5,264 times 86 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,910 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.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) Cited 2,192 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"
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,874 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
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell
137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) Cited 587 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
Swartz v. KPMG LLP
476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 2,885 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,698 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"
Mavrix Photo Inc. v. Brand Techs. Inc.
647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 935 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant expressly aimed the content of "celebrity-gossip.net" at California because the site had a specific focus on the California-centric entertainment industry
Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co.
342 U.S. 437 (1952) Cited 1,822 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
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 348,310 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 69,731 times 123 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

The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

30 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 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.

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

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 “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”

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"

Holding that the defendant expressly aimed the content of "celebrity-gossip.net" at California because the site had a specific focus on the California-centric entertainment industry

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

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

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