23 Cited authorities

  1. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,845 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.
  2. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,280 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,841 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
  4. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,614 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) )
  5. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

    952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)   Cited 1,297 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania
  6. Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen

    141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that personal jurisdiction existed where “[t]he brunt of the harm ... was felt in California,” and the defendant “knew Panavision would likely suffer harm there because, although at all relevant times Panavision was a Delaware limited partnership, its principal place of business was in California”
  7. Compuserve, Incorporated v. Patterson

    89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,103 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's contacts with Ohio were sufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant consciously reached out from Texas to Ohio to subscribe to CompuServe and sold his software over CompuServe's Ohio-based system
  8. Bird v. Parsons

    289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 831 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding 4,666 internet domain-name registrations, specifically analogized to sales, insufficient for general jurisdiction
  9. Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc.

    282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 806 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the purposeful availment requirement is satisfied "if the web site is interactive to a degree that reveals specifically intended interaction with residents of the state"
  10. Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC

    190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 534 times
    Holding that website is passive when it provides the user with printable forms and displays contact information
  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 69,253 times   122 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
  12. Section 13-423 - Personal jurisdiction based upon conduct

    D.C. Code § 13-423   Cited 655 times
    Authorizing jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent
  13. Section 13-334 - Service on foreign corporations

    D.C. Code § 13-334   Cited 92 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Governing service of process on foreign corporations in the District