Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,845 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.
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,879 times 40 Legal AnalysesHolding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable
Marten v. Godwin
499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 924 timesHolding that court lacked special jurisdiction over the University of Kansas based on its expulsion of a Pennsylvania resident from its internet-based education program, allegedly in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise of his freedom of expression under the First Amendment
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) Cited 1,297 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 1,151 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 1,103 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
Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, National Ass'n v. Farino
960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992) Cited 1,124 timesHolding that plaintiff's right to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained when factual allegations suggest the possible existence of requisite contacts between the defendant and the forum state with "reasonable particularity"
Budget Blinds v. White
536 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 560 timesHolding that a district court may treat a forum resident's claim of trademark infringement as an intentional tort, for the purpose of determining whether jurisdiction is proper over a non-forum defendant
Grand Entertainment Group v. Star Media Sales
988 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1993) Cited 873 timesHolding that the "'person for the time being in charge' of any office or usual place of business of the defendants for purposes of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 402 must either be an individual with some direct connection to the party to be served or one zohom the process server determines to be authorized, on the basis of her representation of authority, as evidenced by the affidavit of service"
D'Jamoos v. Pilatus Aircraft
566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 461 timesHolding that transfer under this statute is appropriate where a court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant
Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 U.S.C. § 2511 Cited 2,784 times 42 Legal AnalysesImposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”