18 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,969 times 238 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 5,492 times 88 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell
137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) Cited 592 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
Int'l Energy Ventures Mgmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy Grp., Ltd.
818 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2016) Cited 653 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal pleading standard applies when determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim against a non-diverse defendant
Ranza v. Nike, Inc.
793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 616 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer was not an alter ego of its parent corporation, but that if it had been, the parent corporation's contacts could be attributed to the employer to establish personal jurisdiction over the employer
Johnston v. Multidata
523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 630 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant did not "ha[ve] a general business presence in [Texas] based on the residence of two employees . . . [who] work[ed] from home and report[ed] to supervisors located in Toronto, Canada" because "[w]hile their presence [was] certainly a regular contact with Texas, it [was] not substantial enough to create a general business presence in Texas"
Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) Cited 423 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "except in a truly ‘exceptional’ case, a corporate defendant may be treated as ‘essentially at home’ only where it is incorporated or maintains its principal place of business"
Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter
768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) Cited 413 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that communications and wire transfers were insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the communications and transfers were initiated by the resident plaintiff
Revell v. Lidov
317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 575 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding sales of thirty-five subscriptions in two years insufficient for general jurisdiction
Chavez v. Dole Food Co.
836 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2016) Cited 232 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts may exercise specific jurisdiction over foreign defendants "when the cause of action arises from the defendant's forum related activities"
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 358,269 times 949 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 72,489 times 129 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

Bagley v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

18 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 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 the federal pleading standard applies when determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim against a non-diverse defendant

Holding that employer was not an alter ego of its parent corporation, but that if it had been, the parent corporation's contacts could be attributed to the employer to establish personal jurisdiction over the employer

Holding that "except in a truly ‘exceptional’ case, a corporate defendant may be treated as ‘essentially at home’ only where it is incorporated or maintains its principal place of business"

Holding that communications and wire transfers were insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the communications and transfers were initiated by the resident plaintiff

Holding sales of thirty-five subscriptions in two years insufficient for general jurisdiction

Holding that courts may exercise specific jurisdiction over foreign defendants "when the cause of action arises from the defendant's forum related activities"

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