12 Cited authorities

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,819 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding 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.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,826 times 32 Legal Analyses
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
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,579 times 109 Legal Analyses
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) )
Milliken v. Meyer
311 U.S. 457 (1940) Cited 3,524 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the constitutional adequacy of an alternate method of service "is dependent on whether or not the form of substituted service provided for such cases and employed is reasonably calculated to give [the defendant] actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard"
Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez
305 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 421 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court adopted "too narrow of a view" of the relevant contacts with respect to specific jurisdiction, reasoning that, although the contacts "may not have directly given rise to the plaintiff's cause of action, they certainly 'relate to' it"
Hoffritz for Cutlery, Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd.
763 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 563 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that fifty-four visits over ten years was insufficient for personal jurisdiction under section 301
Terracom v. Valley Nat. Bank
49 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 402 times
Holding that the defendant must have actually known that its product would reach the forum state before the "stream of commerce" theory will support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant
Landoil Res. v. Alexander Alexander Serv
918 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 296 times
Holding that thirteen business trips of short duration over eighteen months was not continuous and systematic solicitation of business in the state to justify general jurisdiction
Laufer v. Ostrow
55 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 363 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the corporation must be engaged in "activities of substance in addition to solicitation" in order to establish general personal jurisdiction"
ISI Brands, Inc. v. KCC International, Inc.
458 F. Supp. 2d 81 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 51 times
Denying jurisdictional discovery where plaintiff could only speculate that defendant sold additional products in forum via its website that might establish jurisdiction
Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
N.Y. CPLR 302 Cited 4,203 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"
Section 301 - Jurisdiction over persons, property or status
N.Y. CPLR 301 Cited 1,551 times
Codifying caselaw that incorporates "doing business" standard

Cengage Learning Inc. et al v. Buckeye Books et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding 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.

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

Holding that the constitutional adequacy of an alternate method of service "is dependent on whether or not the form of substituted service provided for such cases and employed is reasonably calculated to give [the defendant] actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard"

Holding that the district court adopted "too narrow of a view" of the relevant contacts with respect to specific jurisdiction, reasoning that, although the contacts "may not have directly given rise to the plaintiff's cause of action, they certainly 'relate to' it"

Holding that fifty-four visits over ten years was insufficient for personal jurisdiction under section 301

Holding that the defendant must have actually known that its product would reach the forum state before the "stream of commerce" theory will support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant

Holding that thirteen business trips of short duration over eighteen months was not continuous and systematic solicitation of business in the state to justify general jurisdiction

Holding that the corporation must be engaged in "activities of substance in addition to solicitation" in order to establish general personal jurisdiction"

Denying jurisdictional discovery where plaintiff could only speculate that defendant sold additional products in forum via its website that might establish jurisdiction

Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"

Codifying caselaw that incorporates "doing business" standard