Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,003 times 46 Legal AnalysesHolding 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.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,331 times 26 Legal AnalysesHolding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,906 times 32 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,784 times 109 Legal AnalysesHolding 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) )
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) Cited 1,312 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania
Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen
141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,155 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
Compuserve, Incorporated v. Patterson
89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,110 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Bird v. Parsons
289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) Cited 842 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding 4,666 internet domain-name registrations, specifically analogized to sales, insufficient for general jurisdiction
Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc.
282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) Cited 813 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC
190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 540 timesHolding that website is passive when it provides the user with printable forms and displays contact information
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 70,485 times 126 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 13-423 - Personal jurisdiction based upon conduct
D.C. Code § 13-423 Cited 660 timesAuthorizing jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent
Section 13-334 - Service on foreign corporations
D.C. Code § 13-334 Cited 94 times 1 Legal AnalysesGoverning service of process on foreign corporations in the District