Daimler AG v. Bauman

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

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

Walden v. Fiore

Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.

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"

United States v. Bestfoods

Holding that ownership and control is insufficient to demonstrate an alter-ego relationship

Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co.

Holding that due process concerns related to personal jurisdiction are alleviated where the defendant has consented to service

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell

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.

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"

Boschetto v. Hansing

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.

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

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

Rule 4 - Summons

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 410.10 - Generally

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

Section 416.10 - Service on corporation

Addressing service on "[c]orporations generally"

Section 2110 - Delivery by hand of copy of process

Section 2100 - Applicability