§Why CasetextPricing

Frank Paterno, Appellant,v.Laser Spine Institute, et al., Respondents.

Brief

20 Cited authorities

  1. Hanson v. Denckla

    357 U.S. 235 (1958)   Cited 7,861 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant trustee was inappropriate when defendant's only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiff-settlor's unilateral activity of moving to Florida

  2. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.

    355 U.S. 220 (1957)   Cited 3,400 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a California court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurer when the insurer delivered the offer of life insurance and the insurance contract itself to California and the insured had sent his premium payments from California to the insurer for two years

  3. Fischbarg v. Doucet

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9962 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 550 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants' calls and emails to plaintiff in New York were transactions giving rise to the cause of action

  4. Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp.

    71 N.Y.2d 460 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 943 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish jurisdiction under section 302, the plaintiff was not required to "establish a formal agency relationship between [the foreign] defendants and [the alleged agent]"; instead, the plaintiff needed only to "convince the court that [the alleged agent] engaged in purposeful activities in [New York] in relation to his transaction for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of the [foreign] defendants and that they exercised some control over [the alleged agent] in the matter"

  5. Henderson v. I.N.S.

    157 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 450 times
    Holding that a court has personal jurisdiction in a § 2241 habeas case "`so long as the custodian can be reached by service of process'" as governed by state law

  6. Lamarca v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company

    95 N.Y.2d 210 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 387 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that manufacturer reasonably foresaw its actions would have direct consequences in New York because manufacturer's invoice showed that defective object was destined for use in state

  7. McGowan v. Smith

    52 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 599 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant exporter's visits to New York to conduct general marketing research did not "bear a substantial relationship" to products liability action arising from purchase of defendant's product in New York because "[w]hile these visits certainly may be characterized as `purposeful' . . . the occurrence of these visits serves merely to establish [the defendant exporter's] transitory physical presence within the State."

  8. Longines-Wittnauer v. Barnes Reinecke

    15 N.Y.2d 443 (N.Y. 1965)   Cited 732 times
    Holding that minor activities, taken cumulatively, may meet statutory standard

  9. Parke-Bernet Galleries v. Franklyn

    26 N.Y.2d 13 (N.Y. 1970)   Cited 463 times
    Holding that jurisdiction could be exercised over out-of-state defendant who participated in auction bidding by telephone

  10. McKee Elec. Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp.

    20 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 1967)   Cited 398 times
    Holding that "pass[ing] the time of day" with a customer in New York does not give rise to personal jurisdiction