Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

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) )

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"

Mavrix Photo Inc. v. Brand Techs. Inc.

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

Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy

Holding that a district court "need not permit even limited discovery" where a "plaintiff's claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by the defendants"

Bancroft Masters, Inc., v. Augusta National

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

Dole Food Co. v. Watts

Holding that because purposeful direction was established, it was "obvious" that the second prong of the minimum contacts test was also satisfied

Doe v. Unocal Corp.

Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

Ballard v. Savage

Holding that a plaintiff need only make a "prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts" to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N. Am., Inc.

Holding that forum selection clauses applied to non-signatories because larger contract involved transactions that included non-signatories

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 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

Rule 4.2 - Service of Process Outside Arizona