World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

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

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) )

Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling

Holding that hiring decisions were "discrete acts of discrimination" that could not go forward under the continuing-violation doctrine

Diamond Crystal Brands v. Food Movers Intern

Finding specific jurisdiction when the non-forum defendant "purposefully engag[ed] in fourteen such transactions in just six months," thus establishing "a substantial and ongoing relationship with a Georgia manufacturer"

Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica

Holding that "each defendant, upon formal service of process, [has] thirty days to file a notice of removal pursuant to § 1446(b)."

Innovative Clinical v. First National Bank

Holding that subsection must be read and applied literally

Aero Toy Store v. Grieves

Holding that nonresident automobile seller, who regularly solicited business in Georgia via an interactive website and, in fact, sold plaintiff the car at issue in the lawsuit, had sufficient minimum contacts with Georgia to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction in plaintiff's breach of contract action, even though seller did not have offices in Georgia and did not derive substantial revenue from sales in Georgia

Schmidt v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

Consolidating negligence and design defect claims into a single count

Edwards v. Wis. Pharmacal Co.

Finding plaintiff failed to meet Rule 9(b) where he identified single alleged advertisement but offered no details about when or where advertisement was placed

Robertson v. CRI, Inc.

Asserting jurisdiction over California resident who executed a guaranty in California in favor of a Georgia lender

Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Section 51-12-5.1 - Punitive damages

Allowing punitive damages under Georgia state law where "the defendant's actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences"

Section 9-10-91 - Grounds for exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident

Permitting the exercise of Georgia long-arm jurisdiction over a defendant who "[t]ransacts any business within this state"

Section 10-1-390 - Short title